Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

General Cemetery Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Rochdale Corporation Bill, Watford Corporation Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,

London Midland and Scottish Railway Order Confirmation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

NORTH-WEST FRONTIER.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether His Majesty's Government are prepared to reconsider the present policy of the Government of India in regard to the North-West Frontier, to abandon all interference in the tribal area, and to stop strategical road construction in Waziristan and the bombing of wide areas from the air which has accompanied it; and whether, with a view to avoiding further bloodshed, the Government will secure the immediate withdrawal of all British and Indian forces to a stated distance within the administrative border of India?

The Under-Secretary of State for India (Mr. Butler): The policy of the Government of India is to maintain the peace of the border and to enter into friendly relations with the tribes, with a view to their gradual civilisation. There can be no question of a reversal of this policy

in the sense suggested by the hon.

Mr. Gallacher: Is there any difference between the British bombing Waziris who are defending their territory and the Italians bombing Abyssinia?

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what are the latest developments on the North-West Frontier of India; and whether the lack of mule and pack transport, which has hindered the operations of the troops away from the roads, has yet been overcome?

Mr. Butler: The operations recently carried out by different columns composed of two brigades of the 1st Division and the Razmak and Bannu brigades have in each case been successful. In these, and in the attack on the 2nd Brigade camp on the night of 27th/28th April, the tribal lashkars have suffered heavily and it is reported that they are diminishing in number. There is no lack of animal pack transport and the accounts of operations, which are fully reported in the Press, show that the tactical mobility of the various columns is not being impaired.

Brigadier-General Brown: Is the hon. Gentleman quite clear that with the large mechanised force in India now there is in mountainous country adequate mobility?

Mr. Butler: I am informed that there is an adequate supply of animal transport where it is needed.

ROYAL AIR FORCE (MESSING ALLOWANCE).

Mr. Touche: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what is the messing allowance paid to men in the Royal Air Force on service in India; how this sum compares in purchasing power with the ration allowance paid to such men in England and Egypt; and, if it be smaller, whether any steps are being taken to adjust this?

Mr. Butler: The messing allowance paid to men of the Royal Air Force in India is 3½ annas per man per diem. It is not strictly comparable with the ration allowance issued under British Regulations, and a comparison of the respective purchasing power of the two allowances would, therefore, be misleading. The


whole question is at present under consideration, and I expect that an anouncement will be made shortly.

POLITICAL SITUATION.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has further information concerning the present position in India?

Mr. Butler: I have no fresh information to give the House about the present political situation.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: When do the Government propose to summon the Provincial Assemblies?

Mr. Butler: Not at present.

Mr. Morgan Jones: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he would be prepared to suggest a formula of agreement with the Indian Congress leaders, whereby the issue in dispute might be resolved by an appeal to the judges of the federal court acting as arbitrators?

Mr. Butler: I stated in reply to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) on 26th April last the Government's views on the subject of an arbitral tribunal. Similar considerations apply to the suggestion now made by the hon. Member.

Mr. Jones: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that nothing will impede the Government from doing whatever it can to secure the convening of these Provincial Assemblies which have been elected some six or eight weeks ago?

Mr. Butler: The Assemblies must be called together within six months of the inauguration of the Act, and it will be for each individual Governor to summon the Assembly before that time.

Mr. Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman regard it as a desirable situation that this period of six months should elapse before some initiative is undertaken by the Governors to settle this difficult and unfortunate situation?

Mr. Butler: The Assemblies must be summoned before the period of six months, and we must leave it to the individual Governors to use their discretion in the matter.

Mr. Benn: What precisely is the difficulty in the Governor-General summoning the leaders in respect of the six Provinces where they have won the elections?

Mr. Butler: The Governors of the individual Provinces have already summoned the leaders of majority parties and given them an invitation. This is essentially a matter for the Governors of Provinces.

Mr. Lansbury: Is it not a fact that there has been a misunderstanding between the Governors and the representatives of Congress? Surely that is a matter that the Governor-General should take in hand and clear up in the whole of the Provinces concerned?

Mr. Butler: I have indicated the attitude of the Governor-General in reply to previous questions. If he is approached, he will certainly give the matter consideration.

Mr. Lansbury: Surely the Governor-General will not stand on his dignity in a matter of this kind and will take the initiative? He is in the best and strongest position, and it is his business to bring about a settlement.

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the misunderstanding whether it is the British or the Indians who are to control India?

OPIUM CONFERENCE.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any action has been taken at Geneva to set up a preparatory commission in anticipation of the World Opium Conference to be held in 1940?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): Preparatory work for the Conference for Limiting the Production of the Opium Poppy and of Raw Opium is among the items on the Agenda of the next session of the Opium Advisory Committee which will open at Geneva on 24th May. I understand that the Committee will consider, among other matters, the appointment of a Preparatory Committee for the purpose of drawing up a preliminary draft Convention.

Mr. Henderson: In view of the need for taking drastic and effective action in respect of the opium evil, will the Government delegates be instructed to work in


close co-operation with the delegates of the United States delegation in order to ensure that this conference shall be a success?

Mr. Eden: I can assure the hon. Member that our delegation will do everything in its power to co-operate with the United States.

SPAIN.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reports he has received from His Majesty's representatives in Spain concerning the bombing by air of Guernica, the capital of the Basques, on 26th to 27th April, 1937; and whether any British subjects lost their lives or were injured in these air raids?

Captain Ramsay: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the importance of ascertaining who was in fact responsible for the destruction of Guernica, he will give to the House any information received from His Majesty's representatives in Spain?

Mr. Dalton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any information which throws light upon the question-whether the destruction of Guernica and the massacre of its civil population was carried out by German aircraft manned by German pilots and crews?

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will initiate immediately proposals for an international commission to investigate the circumstances of the recent air attack on Guernica and, in particular, the charges made by the Basque Government?

Mr. Eden: A telegram was sent on Friday last to His Majesty's Ambassador and to His Majesty's Consul at Bilbao requesting them to forward as soon as possible any information which might assist in establishing the facts regarding the destruction of Guernica. Replies are still being received and my information is not yet complete. I am, therefore, not in a position to make a considered statement on this subject to-day. His Majesty's Government have, however, already expressed their views on the general question of the bombardment of civilian populations, of which the destruction of Guernica furnishes so deplorable

an example. As I intimated to the House on Friday last, His Majesty's Government are considering what steps can be taken in co-operation with other Powers to prevent recurrence of such happenings.

Mr. Dalton: So far as the question of German responsibility for this outrage is concerned, has the hon. Gentleman seen a definite statement by the Dean of Valladolid, who is now proceeding to Rome to lay before the Pope an account by eye-witnesses, including himself, that German planes were involved?

Mr. Eden: I am not sure that I have actually seen the statement, but I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to it.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of an international commission after he has made his investigation?

Mr. Eden: I would rather not go further than I have gone in the last part of my answer.

Mr. Day: Were any British lives lost, and have arrangements been made for evacuation?

Mr. Eden: No British lives have been lost, as far as I am aware, and authority has been given to the British Consul at Bilbao to come away and evacuate the British community when he considers it necessary.

Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman: Is it not the case that Guernica is the centre of the small arms manufacture in the Basque country?

Mr. Sorensen: Can we have a statement before the Whitsuntide Adjournment?

Mr. Eden: Certainly, I hope so.

Captain Cazalet: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in connection with non-intervention, the transfer of Spanish Government merchant vessels to foreign flags has been considered, in view of its effect upon such non-intervention, and seeing that transfers of this nature give such vessels immunity at sea which they would not otherwise possess?

Mr. Eden: The problem raised by the transfer of flag is, I understand, already under consideration by the Non-Intervention Committee, but the particular ques-


tion which is engaging its attention is that of the transfer from the flag of one of the non-intervention countries to the Spanish flag in order to avoid the necessity of complying with the arrangements under the scheme of observation, and not vice versa. As far as transfer to British ownership is concerned, my information is that no merchant ship belonging to the Spanish Government has been transferred to British ownership since 1st January last. I have no information as regards transfer to foreign owners.

Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: Who charters these ships?

Mr. Eden: That is another question for the Board of Trade.

Captain Alan Graham: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that we are employing ships of the British Navy to safeguard food ships for the Spanish Government, he will inquire from the British diplomatic and consular representatives in Spain whether these ships have been bought on behalf of, or are being financed by, the Spanish Government?

Mr. Eden: Such information as is available regarding the ownership of these ships is, I understand, obtainable from the files of the companies concerned in the Register at Somerset House.

Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Mr. T. D. McEwen, now connected with the despatch of food ships to Spanish Government ports, is a born British subject or a naturalised subject and, in the latter case, when his naturalisation papers were taken out; and whether, in view of his activities on behalf of the Spanish Government in Spain, the Government will consider the withdrawal of his passport?

Mr. Eden: So far as I am aware, Mr. McEwen is a natural born British subject. I have no evidence to show that his activities on behalf of the Spanish Government have exceeded legitimate commercial transactions or that he has been concerned with breaches of the Non-Intervention Agreement. The answer to the last part of the question is, therefore, in the negative.

Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: Will my right hon. Friend make further inquiries?

Mr. Eden: I do not think that that is really a question for me.

Mr. Logan: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the intended evacuation of thousands of Basque children to this country; is he prepared to offer the services of the British Navy for convoy; and, owing to the faith of these children, will he consult with the ecclesiastical authorities in London regarding their destination?

Mr. Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government will offer its assistance to secure the evacuation of the civilian population, and especially the women and children, from Basque towns now threatened by indiscriminate bombardment; and whether special facilities will be afforded for the evacuation of children?

Mr. W. Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will offer the services of the British Navy to carry refugee women and children from Bermeo to France at the request of the Basque Government to do so?

Miss Rathbone: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have asked, or have requested the Basque Government to ask, the agreement of General Franco before consenting to assist in the evacuation of children from Bilbao?

Mr. Eden: The Basque Government have approached His Majesty's Government, stating that they desire to evacuate from Bilbao women, children and old people threatened by the approach of the war zone to the city, and requesting the protection of His Majesty's ships for the purpose of this evacuation. In reply, His Majesty's Government asked whether it was intended that the scheme of evacuation should apply to persons of all political creeds, and whether the Basque Government would consent that His Majesty's Consul in Bilbao should be kept in close touch with the arrangements in order that he might be in a position to ensure that impartiality was being strictly observed in the spirit and the letter. Assurances on these points have now been


received from the Basque Government, and His Majesty's Government have accordingly agreed to instruct His Majesty's ships to afford all possible protection on the high seas to any ships leaving Bilbao with these non-combatant refugees on board. They have also informed the insurgent authorities of their intentions in regard to this matter. As regards the last part of the question put by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan), I understand that no final arrangements have yet been made for the admission of Basque children; but that the point which the hon. Member makes has not been overlooked by the committee which is making itself responsible for their care in this country.

Mr. Logan: May I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that, as they have a special language and have their own teachers, it would be a very good thing for the children themselves if the Government would see that they were partitioned off instead of being used for propaganda purposes?

Miss Wilkinson: As I have a telegram here saying that 4,000 children are ready to sail, does the latter part of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman mean that, as far as the Foreign Office are concerned, arrangements are ready to admit them, provided the arrangements of the committee are carried through?

Mr. Eden: That is rather another point that the hon. Lady has raised. What I am concerned with is the protection of these ships on the high seas. The admission of these children to this country, of course, is not a matter for me.

Captain Heilgers: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the old people are to be above any particular age?

Mr. Eden: I should like to have notice of that question.

Mr. Rickards: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is anything in the Non-Intervention Agreement to prevent Russia or France sending food to Bilbao?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir.

Mr. Marcus Samuel: Is it not the fact that this country is the only country that is sending any food to Spain at present?

Mr. Eden: As far as I am aware, that is so.

Mr. Dalton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a German bomber, of the type Heinkel III, was shot down over Bilbao two weeks ago; that the bodies of the crew of three carried German papers; that on one of the bodies there was a diary showing that the writer left Berlin with the aeroplane on 5th April and travelled via Rome to Seville, where he arrived on 6th April; and what action he proposes to take in view of this infraction of the Non-Intervention Agreement and of the volunteer agreement of 20th February?

Mr. Eden: I have no information regarding the particular incident to which the hon. Member refers, but if he will communicate to me such facts as may be in his possession, I will certainly consider them.

Mr. Dalton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these particulars have been furnished by a most trustworthy British observer in Bilbao and, if I furnish in confidence, his name and further particulars to the right hon. Gentleman will he follow up the matter?

Mr. Eden: I, of course, will examine anything the hon. Gentleman sends to me.

Mr. Bellenger: May we have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that, if it is true, His Majesty's Government will take some action in the matter?

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Marquis del Moral was asked to give any undertaking to refrain from political activities whilst in this country; and whether his attention has been drawn to the activities of the Marquis with a view to influencing the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to nonintervention in Spanish affairs?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): This gentleman, I understand, was born in Australia but acquired Spanish nationality in 1928. A great part of his life has been spent in this country where his children were born, and, according to his statement on registration with the police, he has seen several years' service in the British Army, including service during the Boer War and the last War. No


restriction has been applied to his stay here. As explained in the reply to the question put on 11th February by the lion. Member for Romford (Mr. Parker), the policy of non-intervention is not regarded as extending to prohibiting any resident from expressing his sympathy with either side in the Spanish struggle.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to ask the Under-Secretary to answer my question: whether his attention has been drawn to the actual attempts on the part of the Marquis del Moral to influence Members of this House in connection with nonintervention in Spanish affairs?

Sir Patrick Hannon: Is it not a fact that this distinguished visitor simply came here to state facts to the House of Commons, as has been done on so many other occasions?

Mr. Thurtle: Is the Under-Secretary aware that one word from a marquis counts for more than a thousand from an ordinary man with members of the Tory party?

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. I put down a question and sent material to the Home Office, and the Home Office have deliberately avoided the material I sent to them and have not answered my question. I want to know whether I am not entitled to have a reply.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of Order. An answer has been given to the question.

Mr. Stephen: Cannot we put a supplementary question on this matter?

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member rise to a point of Order?

Mr. Stephen: I rose in order to put a supplementary question.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. Has an agency representing another Government the right to write letters to Members of Parliament inviting them to attack other Members of Parliament?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. Stephen: On a point of Order. Are we riot allowed to put a supplementary question with regard to the question on the Paper?

Mr. Speaker: One or two supplementary questions have already been asked.

Mr. MacNeill Weir: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any agreement has been reached by the Non-Intervention Committee as to the withdrawal of foreign volunteers from Spain?

Mr. Eden: As stated by my Noble Friend on 26th April, the sub-committee which was appointed to prepare a scheme for the withdrawal of non-Spanish combatants from Spain held its first meeting on that day. It is meeting again this afternoon. I understand that progress is being made as rapidly as could be expected in view of the extremely complicated problems involved.

Sir Percy Harris: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that no more volunteers are entering Spain on either side?

Mr. Eden: I am satisfied that the scheme is at work.

Mr. Benn: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received a reply from General Franco with reference to the scheme of evacuating women and children from Bilbao by sea?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. A reply has been received from the insurgent authorities recognising the humanitarian and impartial motives of His Majesty's Government but rejecting the proposal for a number of reasons and making alternative proposals of their own for ensuring the safety of the civilian population. I would make it clear that His Majesty's Government intend, nevertheless, to give the assistance to which I have referred in previous answers on this subject to-day.

ARMAMENTS EXPENDITURE (INTERNATIONAL CONVERSATIONS).

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information on the discussions between the statesmen of several Scandinavian and other countries of a draft agreement on armaments expenditure, including the setting up of a joint committee to communicate direct with the disarmament section of the League of Nations?

Mr. Eden: I understand that conversations are taking place between certain countries. His Majesty's Government will no doubt be informed in due course of their outcome.

Mr. Bellenger: From the knowledge that the right hon. Gentleman possesses of these conversations, may we take it that the Government will be sympathetically inclined to consider such an agreement?

Mr. Eden: I am disposed to await a communication from these Governments concerned, with whom, of course, we are in very friendly relations, and I have no doubt that they will tell us as soon as they have something to communicate.

BELGIUM (LOCARNO TREATY).

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that under Article 8 of the Treaty of Locarno the Treaty can only be terminated by a two-thirds majority of the Council of the League of Nations, the consent of the League Council has been obtained to the variation of the Treaty as a result of the release of Belgium from the treaty obligations contained in the Anglo-French declaration of 24th April?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir. Article 8 contemplates the position where the Treaty of Locarno can cease to have effect because the Council decides that the League of Nations ensures sufficient protection to the parties. The situation produced by Germany's repudiation of the Treaty obviously rendered inappropriate the utilisation of the machinery provided by Article 8, especially as there was no question of terminating the Treaty.

Mr. Henderson: Is it not the fact that the only obligation imposed upon Belgium by the Treaty of Locarno to come to the assistance of this country was in effect a mere re-affirmation of the obligations of Belgium under Article 16 of the Covenant, and, that being so, is not the releasing of Belgium from her obligations a matter for the League of Nations?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir, the hon. Gentleman is not correct. In point of fact, Belgium has no obligations at all to this country under the Treaty of Locarno.

Sir John Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in

view of the release by the British and French Governments of Belgium from all obligations towards them resulting from the Treaty of Locarno and the arrangements of 19th March, 1936, he will state what notice the British and French Governments are bound to give to the Belgian Government, in order to terminate their obligations towards Belgium resulting from the said Treaty and the said arrangements should they also desire to be relieved of such obligations?

Mr. Eden: No such period of notice has been provided for.

Sir J. Mellor: Am I to understand from my right hon. Friend that, in exchange for a purely gratuitous and permanent guarantee, we have received no consideration whatever from the Belgian Government?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir, the hon. Gentleman should not take that view. In the view of His Majesty's Government, their obligation towards Belgium under the Locarno Treaty constitutes an effort towards the maintenance of peace.

Mr. A. Henderson: Is it not the fact that a joint obligation was issued a week or two ago stating that the French Government and His Majesty's Government purported to release the Belgian Government from her obligations to France and to this country; and how could that be if Belgium is under no obligation to this country?

Mr. Eden: That is a different point. Belgium is under no obligation to this country under the Locarno Treaty.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: Is it not from the special obligations under the Locarno Treaty and the Agreement made last year that Belgium has been released; and has not Belgium re-affirmed her obligations to the States who are her fellow-members of the League of Nations?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, that is perfectly true.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

GOVERNMENT POLICY.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to announce some comprehensive plan for dealing with an increase of home-grown foodstuffs in this country?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I am not in a position to make any further statement on agricultural policy at present.

Mr. De la Bère: Is it not high time that the Government formulated a long-term policy for agriculture in order to assist the production of home-grown foodstuffs; and do they think that, having done nothing, they are expected to do nothing at all?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member asks so many questions garnished with so many derogatory epithets, that he will not expect me to agree with him.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture what assistance and encouragement are being given to the home farmers to produce food as economically as their foreign competitors?

Mr. Morrison: A comprehensive service of education and technical advice is provided for farmers in this country with the object of securing the use of the most efficient methods of production. I am sending my hon. Friend two leaflets giving full particulars.

Mr. De la Bère: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the leaflets, but I would much rather having some Government policy than a few leaflets sent to me.

CUTFORTH (MILK) REORGANISATION REPORT.

Brigadier-General Brown: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Government have now considered the Cutforth (Milk) Reorganisation Report; and what action they propose to take in the matter?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I regret that I am not yet able to make any statement upon this subject.

Brigadier-General Brown: Will there be legislation before the summer?

Mr. Morrison: I hope to be able to announce proposals before the end of the summer and to initiate such legislation as is necessary to maintain the position. My hon. and gallant Friend will understand that I have just received comments from the Milk Marketing Board and the Farmers' Union, and I must study them.

HERRING INDUSTRY (LEVY).

Mr. Adamson: asked the Minister of Agriculture the total amount paid to the Herring Industry Board from the 1d. in the £ levy upon the herring catch of last season up to February, 1937; and whether the amount of levy is to be increased for next season?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am informed that the total amount received by the board in respect of their levy of 1d. in the £ on first sales of herring (including imported herring) during the year ended 31st January, 1937, was £10,785. As from 1st February, 1937, the rate of the levy was increased to 2d. in the £.

Mr. Adamson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the levy is paid by the owners in its entirety, or whether any part of it is charged against the share payment of the crews?

Mr. Morrison: I shall require notice of that question.

BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (STAFF).

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Postmaster-General whether the British Broadcasting Corporation have yet taken any steps to implement the recommendation of the Ullswater Committee that trade unions should be permitted to organise eligible employeés of the corporation, in view of the fact that many grades of employés are at present not working under trade union conditions?

The Postmaster-General (Major Tryon): I understand that members of the staff of the British Broadcasting Corporation have full liberty to belong to any trade union for which they are eligible, and that it is the policy of the corporation to secure that the conditions of employment of its staff are in every case at least as good as those commonly obtaining in the case of comparable workers. If the hon. Member will send me particulars of any case in which difficulty has arisen, I will communicate with the corporation as regards the matter.

Mr. Strauss: Is the Postmaster-General aware that 1,40o members of the staff of the B.B.C. are entitled to be members of a trade union, and that the organisers of these trade unions have applied to the director for permission to organise these


members, and that in all cases they have been refused permission?

Major Tryon: I am not aware that everybody is compelled to accept the policy of the Labour party. If the hon. Member will read the report of the Ullswater Committee he will see that they recommended that facilities should be given within the B.B.C. either for a central staff organisation or for smaller bodies representing the appropriate groups which they might wish to set up, and the corporation accepted this recommendation.

Mr. Strauss: Is the right hon. and gallant Member aware that no decision has been arrived at yet on the Ullswater Committee's report although it is more than a year old?

Major Tryon: A decision was reached a long time ago and announced, and the work is well in hand.

Mr. Morgan Jones: May I ask whether a copy of the decision has been conveyed to the members of the staff of the B.B.C., indicating that they are free to join any union they desire?

Major Tryon: The staff are well aware of the Ullswater Committee's report, the decision of the Government and the willingness of the B.B.C. to afford facilities.

Mr. Attlee: Is the B.B.C. willing to meet representatives of members of trade unions with regard to their grievances? That is the point.

Major Tryon: I do not think it is the point. The point raised is a question in regard to the recommendation of the Ullswater Committee, and that has been accepted by the B.B.C.

Mr. Strauss: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONE TIME SIGNAL.

Mr. Day: asked the Postmaster-General the country of origin and the cost of installation of the speaking clock which is dialled in the London district by the automatic signal TIM; and when it is proposed to introduce similar extended services?

Major Tryon: The speaking clock was designed by the Post Office Engineering Research Department and was constructed by Post Office engineers from parts manufactured in this country. The total capital cost of installation of the mechanism and associated plant, including the necessary preliminary experiments, was about £9,000. In addition, substantial expenditure is incurred in day to day maintenance and in the provision of power and of exchange and junction plant and of operating staff for dealing with the calls. As stated in my answer to the hon. Member's question on 26th April, the date of the extension of the service to other large centres is dependent upon the manufacture of special equipment and the provision of additional line plant.

Mr. Day: Is all the special equipment being manufactured in Great Britain?

Major Tryon: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Charles Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the cost of the day to day maintenance of this clock?

TELEPHONE SERVICE, WESTERN ISLES.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Postmaster-General (1) whether he will make a statement about the proposed radio-telephone extension to the Western Isles; which islands will be served; whether further local extensions will be made among the smaller islands; and how soon these developments will take place;
(2) what steps have been or are being taken to provide public telephones for day and night use in the villages of the Western Isles;
(3) whether he will take action to provide all nurses' cottages in the Western Isles with telephones connected directly with local doctors' houses?

Major Tryon: Trunk telephone service to Harris via Stornoway will be available about the end of next month. Telephone service will eventually be provided to all the important islands in the Western Isles. The main link with the Southern Islands of the Outer Hebrides will be provided by means of a radio-telephone channel from Castlebay to Tobermory. The smaller islands will also be served where the cost is not prohibitive. It is not possible at this stage to say when the


work will be completed, but it is proceeding now. The hon. Member will appreciate that it is not practicable to say what can be done in kiosk provision until the general scheme of communications for the outlying islands has been developed further. When this stage has been reached, the extension of kiosk facilities to the islands will be considered. I have no authority to provide telephone service at nurses' cottages and doctors' houses otherwise than on the usual rental terms.

Mr. MacMillan: May we have a more definite assurance that the service will eventually be supplied in the smaller islands? May we have any hope at least that in the islands which are already connected kiosks will be established?

Major Tryon: That was covered in my original answer. We are getting on with the work.

ROYAL PARKS (MOTOR COACH PERMITS).

Mr. Day: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, the number of requests that have been made to his Department for permits, and the number granted, to motor coaches to use certain roads in Hyde Park, St. James's Park, and Green Park for the three years ended to the last convenient date?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. R. S. Hudson): (for the First Commissioner of Works): During the three years ending at 31st March, 1937, 2,068 permits have been asked for and granted.

Mr. Day: Has any special number been asked for in respect of the Coronation?

Mr. Hudson: The hon. Member had better put that question down.

THE CORONATION.

Major Despencer Robertson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether arrangements can be made for holders of tickets in the Palace Yard uncovered stands to

sit in Westminster Hall, if it is wet, during the period of waiting on Coronation day?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: A buffet for the use of the occupants of the stands within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster will be established in Westminster Hall, and tables and chairs will be provided in connection therewith. I am afraid, however that it would not be possible to seat simultaneously in the Hall all those occupying uncovered seats on the stands.

Sir P. Harris: asked the Lord President of the Council how many seats have been erected in Westminster Abbey from which no direct view of the Coronation ceremony is obtainable?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): All seats are placed in a position to afford a view of the procession or the ceremony. Those seats east of the Screen, numbering 4,020, will afford a view of the ceremony in the Coronation Theatre or Sanctuary.

Sir P. Harris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 50 of the tickets for seats have been returned by the Press on the ground that they give no adequate view of the proceedings?

Mr. MacDonald: That is a totally different question. If the hon. Member has any communication I should be glad to have it. No committee for which I am answering is responsible for the construction of Westminster Abbey.

Sir P. Harris: asked the Lord President of the Council how many seats to view the Coronation ceremony and procession have been returned by various organisations to which they were allocated; and whether such seats have been offered to the public at the same price?

Mr. MacDonald: Approximately 2,000 seats in all were not required by the organisations to which they were offered. These seats have now been offered to other similar organisations at the same prices, and have been accepted.

Sir P. Harris: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware that five Press photographers, including two cinematograph photographers, with all their apparatus, are to be accommodated for three hours during the Coronation


ceremony in Westminster Abbey in a wooden construction measuring 12 feet by 4 feet 6 inches, by 4 feet; and whether he is satisfied that this is adequate accommodation?

Mr. Hudson: In view of the prominent position desired by the photographers for themselves and for their apparatus it has been necessary, in order that they may not be so conspicuous as to interfere with the service or with the general appearance of the Abbey, to construct a box for them. Ventilation is provided from both ends and from the roof. It will be occupied for as short a time as possible, as arrangements have been made for the photographers to enter it immediately before the service and to leave immediately afterwards. Having regard to the general limitation of space in the Abbey, it is regretted that the arrangements, whether for photographers or for members of the congregation generally, cannot be more commodious. The photographers themselves are satisfied with the accommodation provided.

Mr. W. A. Reid: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider the making of an award to old age pensioners of a similar Coronation grant to that which is to be made to the registered unemployed, as so many of these pensioners are in very straitened circumstances?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on 11th March to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. Denville) and other hon. Members.

Mr. Mabane (for Mr. Leckie): asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, as representing the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the disappointment caused to Members who have been allotted seats in uncovered stands for the Coronation ceremony but who had applied for seats in covered stands, he will take steps to have covers put on the stands in question?

Mr. Hudson: I regret that, owing to the presence of the Catalpa trees, it is not possible to cover the great majority of the seats referred to. In the opinion of my Noble Friend the First Commis-

sioner of Works it would be indefensible to subject these trees to the severe lopping which would be necessary to enable a roof to be fixed.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. de Rothschild: asked the Minister of Health whether he will introduce legislation to amend the National Health Insurance Acts so as to increase the amount of maternity benefit payable by approved societies, seeing that the Midwives Act, 1936, by making compulsory the attendance of a qualified midwife at all confinements, throws an added financial burden on insured contributors at such times?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: The position of a woman entitled to maternity benefit as regards the arrangements for attendance at her confinement is not materially affected by the provisions of the Midwives Act, 1936. The National Health Insurance Acts have always contemplated that such a woman should be attended either by a medical practitioner or a qualified midwife. Moreover, the Midwives Act expressly provides that the fees charged by local authorities for the services of their midwives may be remitted in whole or in part where the circumstances justify such remission. My right hon. Friend does not, therefore, consider that the coming into operation of the new Midwives Act affords any reason for the suggested amendment of the National Health Insurance Act.

Mr. George Griffiths: Is the hon. Member not aware that independent midwives now are paid a fee of 1os., and that they are taking away the maternity benefit? Will not the Minister see that maternity benefits are raised by at least another 15s.?

Mr. Hudson: It is unnecessary to do that, because the woman will be able to obtain the services of a qualified midwife under the arrangements of the Midwives Act at a price within her means.

HOUSING (DURHAM COUNTY).

Mr. Whiteley: asked the Minister of Health how many aged people's cottages have been erected in Durham county since January, 1936, to date; and what number have been sanctioned for 1937–38?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Between 1st January, 1936, and 31st March, 1937, 774 non-parlour houses with one bedroom were sanctioned and 441 commenced. It is not known how many have been completed.

Mr. Whiteley: Can the hon. Member say whether these houses are to replace houses removed by slum clearance or whether we can look upon them as actually additional houses?

Mr. Hudson: I cannot say without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

ASSISTANCE.

Mr. Guy: asked the Minister of Labour the total number and percentage of able-bodied poor transferred from the local authority to the Unemployment Assistance Board in the Edinburgh area since the second appointed day?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): In the Unemployment Assistance Board's Edinburgh area the number of persons in receipt of public assistance prior to the second appointed day who made applications for unemployment assistance allowances and who were taken over from public assistance authorities was 1,804, representing about 68 per cent. of the total number of such applications.

Mr. Guy: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that the Board appear to be looking at this question in a rather narrow way?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I have no reason to believe that the Board are interpreting the regulations otherwise than as they should do.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give the House any information in connection with the way that the Unemployment Assistance Board are dealing with the cases under Part II of the Unemployment Assistance Act; whether he is aware of the different interpretations of the regulations that are being given; whether he can give any reason why only 40 per cent. of cases have been accepted in Haslington and in Preston and Chorley 80 per cent. have been accepted; and whether he is aware that there is a big demand in many parts of the country for a complete withdrawal of Part II of the Act?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the transfer of applications from the public assistance authorities to the Unemployment Assistance Board on the Second Appointed Day. The conditions under which such transfer may take place are laid down by Section 36 of the Unemployment Act, 1934. The decision is given in the first instance by the Board's officer. The local authority and the applicant, if dissatisfied with the decision, have the right to appeal to the chairman of the appeal tribunal. There have been considerable variations in the proportion of cases transferred to the Board in various areas and this has been due to variations in the numbers of different classes of applicants. I have no reason to suppose that the Board is interpreting the Act differently in different parts of the country and would point out that, as I have stated, there is in each case the right of appeal.

Mr. Thorne: I take it that the Parliamentary Secretary knows the percentages which have been handed over to the public assistance committee by various boards?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: That may be the case, but each applicant has a right to appeal if he wishes.

Sir John Haslam: May I ask whether it is Haslington or Haslingden which is meant in the question? I know no place called Haslington, but I do know a place called Haslingden?

BENEFIT (LABOURERS, PARKHEAD FORGE, GLASGOW).

Mr. Stephen: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that labourers at Parkhead Forge, Glasgow, who are not on strike but were thrown idle as a result of the stoppage, and were receiving unemployment benefit, have since been refused benefit because the strike was recognised as official by the union, even though the labourers themselves are not recognised as being on strike according to the rules of the union and do not receive dispute benefit, and had no vote in the ballot which determines on strike action; and whether he will make inquiry into the matter and see that the men in question are granted benefit?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I am making inquiries and will write to the hon. Member.

WEST HAM.

Mr. Groves: asked the Minister of Health the number of cases transferred to public assistance from the Unemployment Assistance Board in West Ham covering the months of February, March, and up to date?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: My right hon. Friend has no exact statistics on this matter, but he is informed by the local authority that some 30 cases have been transferred to them from the Unemployment Assistance Board since the beginning of this year.

BANKRUPTCIES (FARMERS).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the figures of the total number of bankruptcies amongst farmers for the year 1936?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Dr. Burgin): The number of bankruptcies in England and Wales in 1936 amongst those who are described in the returns as farmers was 125.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the Minister entirely satisfied with the Department of the Board of Trade which is dealing with bankruptcies?

Dr. Burgin: Absolutely; and with every other Department of the Board of Trade.

BRITISH OVERSEA INVESTMENTS.

Major Dorman-Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade the total amount of British capital now invested in countries oversea, and the amount of such capital invested in Canada, including Newfoundland, Australia and New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, and Argentina?

Dr. Burgin: As the answer is rather long and contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

No official estimates of British investments overseas are available. But according to a tentative estimate based on careful but not yet fully completed research, which I have obtained through the

courtesy of Sir Robert Kindersley, the total amount of British oversea investments is about £3,800,000,000, the amount of British-owned securities and private investments in Canada and Newfoundland, being £520, 000,000, Australia £540,000,000, New Zealand £140,000,000, the Union of South Africa £280,000,000 and the Argentine £440,000,000.

IRON AND STEEL INQUIRY.

Miss Wilkinson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now state when the report of the steel inquiry by the Imports Duties Advisory Committee is likely to be published?

Dr. Burgin: I understand that the committee are pressing on with their report, but that it is not yet possible to indicate the probable date of its completion.

Miss Wilkinson: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the delay in producing the report of the iron and steel inquiry is having a bad effect on places like Jarrow where important inquiries with regard to the use of the site are held up, and can he not make representations to the committee to see that this prolonged delay is now brought to an end?

Dr. Burgin: I think the hon. Lady, if she makes a few more inquiries, will find that the account she has given does not represent the facts.

Miss Wilkinson: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that I am not accustomed to say things in this House that I am not prepared to prove and that I have made my statement on the authority of the man who made the inquiries? Will the Minister kindly withdraw the insult?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

BANFF EDUCATIONAL TRUST.

Sir Edmund Findlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can give an assurance that the revenues at present administered by the Banff Educational Trust will be earmarked and safeguarded for the children of the district for whom they were designed, and that, in particular, a part of the revenue will be applied to granting secondary school bursaries at Banff Academy just as they are granted at the secondary


schools in Aberdeen and just as it is proposed to award them at Fordyce Academy?

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affimative and to the second in the negative. The general principle adopted by the Commissioners and the Department is that endowment revenue should not be applied to school bursaries save in exceptional circumstances, which do not appear in this case.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the feeling which exists in Banff on this matter, will the hon. Gentleman not get into touch with the authorities on the matter?

Mr. Wedderburn: The hon. Member will see that there is a Prayer down on this subject for to-night, and perhaps he will await my reply.

SCHOOL BUILDING, SIDLESHAM.

Mr. Thorne: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he can give the House any information in connection with the steel school building which has been built by the West Sussex County Council at Sidlesham; and for what reasons the board sanctioned these steel buildings?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Shakespeare): There has recently been a rapid influx of population at Sidlesham in West Sussex, which has necessitated the enlargement of Sidlesham council school by the addition of four classrooms. In view of the urgency of the need, and the uncertainty as to the permanence of the present arrangements, the local education authority decided to experiment in a form of light construction consisting of light steel framing which can be easily and rapidly assembled or dismantled. The board will watch the experiment with interest.

Mr. Morgan Jones: May we take it that this experiment is only temporary?

Mr. Shakespeare: That I cannot say.

ACCIDENT, DAGENHAM.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give the House any information in

connection with the fatal accident at Ford's motor works at Dagenham, Essex?

Mr. Lloyd: I presume the hon. Member is referring to the fatal accident to Henry John Coe, which occurred on 28th April. My right hon. Friend has received a report from the factory inspector, but prefers to make no statement until he has been able to consider a report of the inquest. He will communicate with the hon. Member in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTOR DRIVERS' SIGNALS.

Mr. Touche: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the doubts expressed as to the legal validity of an automatic stop-light on the rear of a motor-car as a signal of a driver's intention to stop; and whether he will make any statement on the subject?

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Hare-Belisha): Paragraph 37 of the Highway Code says:
Before you stop, or slow down or change direction, give the appropriate signal clearly and in good time.
On page 16 of the code it is stated in the heading:
Signals by drivers should be given with the arm extended from the side of the vehicle at least as far as the elbow when mechanical indicators are not used.

NORTH KENT OMNIBUS DISPUTE.

Captain Plugge: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the public inconvenience caused by the North Kent transport strike, he will inquire what temporary local transport arrangements can be made for the sick, the infirm, the aged and the very young children?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The licensing of any temporary services is—upon application—for the Traffic Commissioners.

Captain Plugge: Will the Minister appoint a court of inquiry into the North Kent transport strike on similar lines to the court of inquiry appointed in the case of the London omnibus strike, in view of the fact that the North Kent omnibus strike has been going on for a much more considerable time?

MOTOR DRIVERS (AGE LIMIT)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will take steps to raise by two years the age at which driving licences can be granted?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on 28th April to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that the answer to which he has just referred said nothing?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman's recollection is at fault. The answer contained five lines.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the right hon. Gentleman make an addition to the five lines indicating that he will consider taking measures along the lines I suggested, in view of the returns of accidents in which young drivers are involved, and also in view of the possibility that in many cases the young driver of 17 has not had the experience of responsibility which is really necessary?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The answer of five lines to which I referred did, in fact, cover that point. I am not unsympathetic towards the hon. Gentleman.

FORTH ROAD BRIDGE.

Mr. Whiteley (for Mr. Mathers): asked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered the representations made to him by the Forth Road Bridge Promotion Committee asking for an assurance that the scheme is approved in principle and will be proceeded with within a definite time; and whether he is prepared to make a declaration which will permit of the large amount of necessary preliminary work to be put in hand?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The considerations which prevailed when I made my statement on this subject on 5th November last are even more dominant to-day, and I can add that the local authorities have been informed that they need not be deterred from taking, in the preparation of plans, discussions with interested parties or otherwise, such preliminary steps as may not involve them in material expenditure and may seem to them expedient before the scheme can again be

brought to the attention of the Government.

Mr. T. Johnston: Is this scheme approved in principle?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I cannot amplify the language which I used on 5th November.

Mr. Johnston: This seems to be a fairly simple question and one that is capable of a direct answer. Is this scheme approved in principle or not?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: It is not approved or disapproved in principle..

LONDON OMNIBUS DISPUTE.

Mr. Attlee: (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any statement to make with regard to the London omnibus strike?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): As the House is aware, I have appointed a Court of Inquiry to inquire into and report upon the questions of the hours of work, the working conditions and the circumstances of the employment of drivers and conductors in the London central omnibus services and the matters in issue between the London Passenger Transport Board and the Transport and General Workers' Union. I think the House will agree that the membership of the court is such as to give confidence to both sides as regards their capacity to consider fairly all facts placed before them. The court held a preliminary meeting on Friday. In view of the importance of the issues it was clear that a short interval was necessary for the purpose of the proper presentation of the case, and by agreement with the parties the court decided to commence hearing evidence to-day. The House will share my regret that the omnibus workers were unable to see their way to remain at work while the inquiry took place, seeing that there is a desire in all quarters that their circumstances shall be thoroughly examined and that a satisfactory solution should be found. I can only hope that, on consideration, they will realise this and that they will put an end to the great public inconvenience which is at present being caused. In the circumstances I should prefer to make no further comment on the position.

Mr. Dalton: Very biased.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how soon he expects the report of the Court of Inquiry?

Mr. Brown: I could not say.

Mr. T. Johnston: Did the right hon. Gentleman take the advice of the Solicitor-General in drafting that reply?

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the same measure of condemnation to the company as he has given to the men?

Mr. Brown: I have given no condemnation at all. I have expressed to the House what I expressed to the parties—my regret.

Sir P. Harris: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why it was not possible to appoint the Court of Inquiry at an earlier date? Why could it not have been operating East week?

Mr. Brown: In the negotiations an attempt was made to get an agreed inquiry. That did not succeed and it would have been impossible, therefore, to have appointed this Court of Inquiry before the delegate conference had taken their decision.

Mr. Stephen: Will the right hon. Gentleman not express his regret that the company did not agree to the reduction of hours before the Court of Inquiry was set up?

Mr. A. Henderson: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the vitriolic speech of the Solicitor-General on Friday of last week on this question, represents the views of the Government?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Baldwin): I must ask for notice of a question like that. I do not read speeches.

MENTAL INSTITUTIONS.

Mr. Mabane (for Mr. Leckie): asked the Minister of Health the number of patients on license at the end of 1935 from each of the certified institutions provided by local authorities for the care of mental defectives?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Statistics are not available for each certified institution, but I am sending my hon. Friend particulars of the number of patients on license chargeable to each of the local authorities.

CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES (SOHO DISTRICT).

Mr. Whiteley (for Mr. Mathers): asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the disclosures in evidence given at the Seine assizes in the trial relating to the murder of Max Kassel, he will instruct the Metropolitan police to pay more attention to eradicating the criminal activities which are now prevalent in the district of Soho?

Mr. Lloyd: As the hon. Member will appreciate, the information given in evidence in this case, so far as it related to conditions in this country, resulted from inquiries undertaken by the Metropolitan police. They are anxious to take every possible step to check the evils which the hon. Member has in mind, and will continue to give vigilant attention to these matters.

HARWORTH COLLIERY DISPUTE.

Mr. Attlee: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has any statement to make regarding the recent negotiations for a settlement of the dispute in the mining industry and what further steps he proposes to take?

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): I had protracted discussions on Thursday and Friday of last week with representatives of the Nottinghamshire coalowners, the Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain and the Nottinghamshire Miners' Industrial Union, at which suggestions for a settlement were very fully discussed. These conversations were followed by the meeting of the National Delegate Conference on Friday afternoon, at which it was decided that notices should be handed in to terminate contracts on 22nd May. I am renewing touch with both sides and would wish to say nothing which might prejudice the solution of a very difficult problem. I regret, therefore, that I am not able to give further details this afternoon, but I shall hope to be able to do so later in the week.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister, in view of the seriousness of a national stoppage—which would take place, if it took place at all, before the House resumes after the Whitsuntide


Recess—whether he can give an opportunity to the House to discuss the matter unless a settlement has been reached meantime?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to consult through the usual channels on that matter. As I said the other day, I hope very much it will not be necessary.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister what is the purpose of suspending the Eleven o'Clock Rule to-night?

The Prime Minister: We hope to make good progress to-day with the Livestock Industry Bill. We are very anxious, if possible, to conclude the Third Reading stage to-morrow. We must wait and see how we get on.

Mr. Attlee: I take it there is no intention of asking the House to sit very late?

The Prime Minister: I do not think so.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 227; Noes, 90.

Division No. 178.]
AYES.
[3.50 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Cruddas, Col. B.
Joel, D. J. B.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr, P. G.
Davison, Sir W. H.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Albery, Sir Irving
Dawson, Sir P.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
De la Bère, R.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Latham, Sir P.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Apsley, Lord
Doland, G. F.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Levy, T.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Drewe, C.
Lewis, O.


Atholl, Duchess of
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Duggan, H. J.
Lloyd, G. W.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Duncan, J. A. L.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Balniel, Lord
Dunglass, Lord
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Scot. U.)


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Ellis, Sir G.
McKie, J. H.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Elmtey, Viscount
Magnay, T.


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Maitland, A.


Bernays, R. H.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Blair, Sir R.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Blaker, Sir R.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Markham, S. F.


Blindell, Sir J.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Bossom, A. C.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.


Brass, Sir W.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Morgan, R. H.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Grimston, R. V.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Bull, B. B.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Burton, Col. H. W.
Guy, J. C. M.
Ormsby Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.


Butler, R. A.
Hannah, I. C.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Patrick, C. M.


Cary, R. A.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Peake, O.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Petherick, M.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Pilkington, R.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Higgs, W. F.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Procter, Major H. A.


Colman, N. C. D.
Holmes, J. S.
Purbrick, R.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ramsbotham, H.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hulbert, N. J.
Reid, Captain A. Cunningham


Cranborne, Viscount
Hunter, T.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Crooks, J. S.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Renter, J. R.




Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wakefield, W. W.


Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Ropner, Colonel L.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Warrender, Sir V.


Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Watt, G. S. H.


Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Storey, S.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Salmon, Sir I.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Salt, E. W.
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Samuel, M. R. A.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton (N'thw'h)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Sueter, Roar-Admiral Sir M. F.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Sutcliffe, H.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Savery, Sir Servington
Tasker, Sir R. I.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Selley, H. R.
Tate, Mavis C.
Wise, A. R.


Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Wragg, H.


Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Simmonds, O. E.
Thomas, J. P. L.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Touche, G. C.



Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-Colonel


Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Turton, R. H.
Sir A. Lambert-Ward.




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Hardie, G. D.
Riley, B.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Adamson, W. M.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Rowson, G.


Ammon, C. G.
Hopkin, D.
Sanders, W. S.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Jagger, J.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sexton, T. M.


Barnes, A. J.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Short, A.


Barr, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Simpson, F. B.


Batey, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Bellenger, F. J.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees (K'ly)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Burke, W. A.
Lawson, J. J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cape, T.
Leslie, J. R.
Stephen, C.


Chater, D.
Logan, D. G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lunn, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Dalton, H.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Thorne, W.


Day, H.
McEntee, V. La T.
Thurtle, E.


Ede, J. C.
McGhee, H. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Viant, S. P.


Gallacher, W.
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Walker, J.


Gardner, B. W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watkins, F. C.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Muff, G.
Westwood, J.


Gibbins, J.
Nathan, Major H. L.
Whiteley, W.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Paling, W.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Grenfell, D. R.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Potts, J.



Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Price, M. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Ridley, G.
Mr. Groves and Mr. Charleton.


Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.

Walter Frank Higgs, Esquire, for Borough of Birmingham (West Birmingham Division).

Major Harry Louis Nathan, for Borough of Wandsworth (Central Division).

CIVIL LIST.

Committee to consider of the Acts relating to the Civil List upon Monday, 24th May.

Ordered,
That His Majesty's Most Gracious Message of the 16th March relating to Grants to Her Majesty the Queen and Members of His Majesty's Family be referred to the said Committee.

Ordered,
That the Report which upon the 28th April was made by the Select Committee on the Civil List be referred to the said Committee."—[Captain Margesson.]

Orders of the Day — LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY BILL.

Order for Consideration of Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee) read.

3.58 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I beg to move,
That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments in Clause 3, page 3, line 39; Clause 3, page 4, line 9; Clause 4, page 4, line 26; Clause 21, page 18, line 3o; Clause 27, page 26, line 1; Schedule 2; Schedule 6, page 52, line 5; and Schedule 6, page 52, line 21; standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. William Morrison, and in respect of the Amendment in Clause 54, page 43, line 10, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Secretary Elliot.
These Amendments involve financial considerations which must be considered by the Committee of the whole House. There are Amendments to the Motion down in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) to include his Amendment to Clause 46, page 39, line 31, and in the name of the hon. Member for South-East Ham (Mr. Barnes) to include his Amendment to Clause 46, page 40, line 4. I think that the best course would be for me to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for South-East Ham so as to enable the question, on which I know they lay some store, to be discussed in Committee. My acceptance of this Amendment to my Motion does not prejudge the attitude I shall adopt towards the Amendment to the Clause when it is moved.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in line 6, at the end, to add:
and in respect of the Amendment in Clause 46, page 4o, line 4, standing on the Notice Paper in the names of Mr. Barnes, Mr. Charles Brown, and Mr. Leslie.
I would like to express our appreciation of the decision of the Minister to accept this Amendment to his Motion for the purpose of enabling us to discuss the matter later.

Mr. Riley: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Is it your intention, Mr. Speaker, to call also my Amendment to the Motion, which is more or less to the same effect?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know that it is to the same effect.

Mr. Williams: I am glad that the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) has been accepted, because it was my Amendment in Committee and the party opposite have now taken charge of it. I am grateful to them for having done so.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir Francis Acland: May the House take it that the Minister is adopting this course, which I welcome, because the Amendments described in his Motion might have the effect of increasing the charge, or something of that kind?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: That is the reason why I moved the Motion.

Ordered,
That the Bill he re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments in Clause 3, page 3, line 39; Clause 3, page 4, line 9; Clause 4, page 4, line 26; Clause 21, page 18, line 30; Clause 27, page 26, line 1; Schedule 2; Schedule 6, page 52, line 5; and Schedule 6, page 52, line 21; standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. William Morrison, and in respect of the Amendment in Clause 54, page 43, line 10, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Secretary Elliot; and in respect of the Amendment in Clause 46, page 40, line 4, standing on the Notice Paper in the names of Mr. Barnes, Mr. Charles Brown, and Mr. Leslie.

Bill considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 3.—(Livestock Advisory Committee.)

4.4 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 3, line 39, to leave out Sub-section (4), and to insert:
(4) There shall be constituted three subcommittees of the Livestock Advisory Committee, one for England, one for Scotland and one for Wales (which sub-committees are hereafter in this Act respectively referred to as 'the English sub-committee,' 'the Scottish sub-committee' and 'the Welsh sub-committee'), and each of the said sub-committees shall, subject as hereinafter provided, consist of such members of the Committee as may be designated by the appropriate Minister:
Provided that, in relation to any of the said sub-committees, the appropriate Minister may appoint to be members of the subcommittee persons who are not members of the Committee, but who appear to the said


Minister to be representative of one or more of the interests referred to in sub-section (2) of this section; but not less than two-thirds of the members of the sub-committee shall be members of the Committee.
(5) Any matter falling to be considered by the Livestock Advisory Committee shall, if it is a matter arising in relation to England only, in relation to Scotland only or in relation to Wales only, stand referred to the English sub-committee, the Scottish subcommittee or the Welsh sub-committee, as the case may be, who shall consider the matter and report thereon to the Committee.
(6) For the purposes of the last two preceding sub-sections, Wales shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Wales and Berwick Act, 1746, be deemed not to be included in England, and Monmouthshire shall be deemed to be included in Wales.
This Amendment is the result of representations made to me that there ought to be a separate sub-committee of the Livestock Advisory Committee to deal with Welsh agriculture. The Amendment was not moved in Committee, but representations have been made to me and I promised to consider them and to see whether anything could be done. A difficulty that I foresaw was this: If I appointed a separate sub-committee for Wales, including representatives of all interests which have to be represented on the Livestock Advisory Committee, that might have the undesirable consequence of making the Livestock Advisory Committee too large. But the words which I have now moved get over that difficulty by providing that the sub-committee for Wales shall consist, as to two-thirds, of representatives of the main Livestock Advisory Committee and as to one-third of additional representatives appointed by the Minister. I can assure the agriculturists of Wales that I am very conscious of their special problems, which arise from geographical and other differences, and I recommend this course as providing machinery whereby Welsh agriculturists can co-operate in the work of the Livestock Commission.

4.7 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: While we welcome the right hon. Gentleman's concession to the principality, in conceding to them a sub-committee of the Livestock Advisory Committee for the purpose of any central slaughter-house scheme that they may have, I am a wee bit doubtful whether the right hon. Gentleman has not gone too far in his concession to hon. Gentlemen sitting behind him, who in Committee were very anxious indeed that

the Livestock Advisory Committee should be almost wholly made up of interested persons.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: No.

Mr. Williams: The hon. and gallant Member says "No," but if he will look back at the Order Paper when the Bill was in Committee, and if he will read the Debates over again, he will find that the one thing his hon. Friends wanted more than all else in discussing the Livestock Advisory Committee was that the interests should be fully and adequately represented and over-weighted beyond any mathematical calculation. The right hon. Gentleman simply says in the Amendment that there shall be three subcommittees, that two-thirds of the memberships of each sub-committee shall consist of members of the Livestock Advisory Committee, and that one-third of the Committee shall be interested persons. How is that going to work out in practice? The Livestock Advisory Committee is to be made up of four additional Members, when one of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendments has been accepted—persons representing producers, local authorities, auctioneers and others concerned in the marketing or preparation of livestock for sale and so forth. To begin with, therefore, we have an absolute maximum of four additional Members; four sets of interests have to be represented, and two-thirds of that section will make up the sub-committee and one-third will be persons who have an interest in the production, auctioneering or preparation for sale of livestock.
I am rather suspicious, in view of the very important duties imposed upon the Livestock Advisory Committee. From Clause 3 of the Bill onwards the Livestock Commission can scarcely do anything without first of all calling upon the Livestock Advisory Committee for advice. I rather suspect that this concession is too much of a concession to the interests, which may delay marketing schemes, the full application of the slaughtering scheme or any one of the re-organisation proposals embodied in the Bill. I regret that the Minister has seen fit to extend the representation of interested persons, because on looking at the Order Paper to-day one can see just what is the view of the Bill taken by hon. Members opposite. I looked through the list of Amendments on the journey to London to-day and I made a remarkable dis-


covery. There are four Parts of the Bill. One Part is to give the Board of Trade power to restrict the imports of beef and veal. The second Part is designed to provide improved marketing. The third Part is to provide improved slaughtering. The fourth Part is to provide £5,000,000 per annum for beef producers. I notice that there is just one Amendment to the restriction Part of the Bill, and that Amendment is designed to make restriction more definite than before; there are 17 Amendments to the marketing proposals; there are 14 Amendments to the slaughtering proposals; but there is not a single Amendment on the Paper to the proposal to give livestock producers £5,000,000 per annum. I am referring to hon. Members opposite, many of them recipients of the subsidy. I do not think it is a wise policy for the right hon. Gentleman to over-weight with interests the committees that are appointed for the purpose of re-organising ultimately in the interests of livestock producers. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has seen fit to weight the balance in favour of the interests and to yield to pressure from his hon. Friends. I think his Amendment is calculated to upset the real and true effectiveness of the marketing and slaughtering proposals.

4.13 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Evans: I rise only to express the thanks of the Members of the Welsh Parliamentary party to the Minister for having produced this Amendment and for having given an opportunity to Wales of establishing a special sub-committee which will have the interests of that country under consideration. I have pressed this matter on the right hon. Gentleman for good reasons. I thank him for having accepted them, for I think his Amendment will help the Bill very much.

Sir R. W. Smith: I thoroughly approve of these appointed members for the subcommittees but I have a difficulty in understanding on what terms they are to be appointed. I have looked through the Bill. The Second Schedule provides for the appointment of the Livestock Advisory Committee and states the terms on which they are to be appointed, but I can find nothing in the Bill which will apply to these appointed members of the

sub-committees. I would like to have an assurance that there will be an Amendment to the Second Schedule to make it applicable to these appointed members. There is so far nothing in the Bill to show for what period these members are to be appointed or to state what are the terms of their appointment.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Consequential Amendments to that now before the Committee are on the Paper and will be moved later.

Sir R. W. Smith: Where are the Amendments to the Second Schedule?

Mr. Morrison: They are near the bottom of page 1203.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 9, after "Committee," insert "and of the said sub-Committees."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

CLAUSE 4.—(Subsidy to producers of fat cattle.)

4.16 p.m.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): I beg to move, in page 4, line 26, after "cow-heifers," to insert "sold or."
This Amendment is moved in order to rectify a small but apparently important omission in the Bill as it has come down to us from the Committee upstairs. When the Bill left the Committee it was decided that payment might be made in respect of a steer, heifer or cow-heifer certified at a live-weight centre whether the producer sold the animal or slaughtered it. As the Bill stands, payment will only be made in respect of a carcase of an animal certified at a dead-weight centre if the animal is slaughtered by or on behalf of the producer presenting it for certification. Accordingly, the farmer who sells the animal cannot, as the Bill stands, obtain payment at the dead-weight centre, on a carcase basis. Clearly he may very well wish to sell the animal and obtain payment on a carcase basis after certification at the dead-weight centre. That is not an uncommon practice at the present moment. Transactions are from time to time carried out between farmers and butchers on a dead-weight basis, the


animal being sold on the hoof at so much a pound, the exact amount to be paid being ascertained after slaughter at the dead-weight centre. As the Bill stands that would not be possible, but I think the Committee will agree that there is no reason why a producer, should he wish to do so, should not be able to present his animal for certification at either a live-weight or a dead-weight centre, irrespective of how he desires it to be disposed of, and this Amendment, quite rightly, gives freedom of choice in that matter.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 21.—(Entry and inspection of market premises.)

4.18 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): I beg to move, in page 18, line 30, at the end, to insert:
(2) Any local authority other than a county council shall have power to enforce, within their area, the provisions of this Part of this Act and the provisions of any livestock markets order or livestock markets bylaws for the time being in force; and, in relation to any local authority having powers of enforcement under this sub-section, the preceding sub-section shall have effect as if any references therein to the Commission or to Great Britain were a reference to that local authority or their area, as the case may be.
The purpose of this Amendment is to give local authorities power to enforce in their own areas, under Part IV of the Bill, any livestock markets orders under Clause 15 and any livestock markets by-laws under Clause 17. The Amendment is really little more than a machinery Amendment. If it were not inserted it would be necessary for the Commission to employ a large number of permanent inspectors to see that these orders or bylaws are properly carried out, and the duties of such inspectors would overlap the duties of the inspectors of the local authorities. It seems a pity that the Cattle Fund should be charged with expenditure of this kind for work which can easily be carried out, without any additional financial burden, by persons already dealing with similar matters at the present time. The local authorities, of course, have power to prosecute as common informers in the ordinary way, but if they took that course they might be surcharged the cost unless they had

this statutory authority which we propose to give them. There is only one apprehension which has, I believe, been expressed in regard to this matter, and in case any hon. Members still entertain it I should like to assure them positively that this Amendment does not confer any power on inspectors to look at the account books of auctioneers. I assure the Committee that the powers for that purpose in Sub-section (8) of Clause 16 are possessed by the Commission alone; this Amendment does not give power to any representative of a local authority to carry out any function of that kind.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I am wondering whether this is a back-door method of restoring to local authorities the power to make a contribution to the reorganisation proposals.

Mr. Wedderburn: No, Sir.

Mr. Williams: That may be so, but I remember that when the Bill passed Second Reading it gave power to a local authority to make a contribution towards a slaughtering scheme, and that power was removed in Committee. This new Sub-section enables the local authority to do the police work for any marketing scheme which may be established. It will not be a very costly matter to local authorities, but it will impose further burdens, no matter how slight, upon ratepayers which they ought not to be called upon to bear. I am not sure that I can conscientiously oppose this new Subsection, because should there be any real marketing organisations set up I want to see them as effective as possible. I want to see the law carried out, and I think that the people on the spot, who know the district and the local psychology, are, perhaps, the best ones to carry out the by-laws. In any case this new Subsection does appear to be in the nature of a side-wind by which the local authorities, that is to say the ratepayers, can make a financial contribution, directly or indirectly, to this organisation.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. Wedderburn: I think there is a difference between subscribing money and using the staff which the authorities already have for the purpose of undertaking this work. This Amendment, so far from imposing a new charge on the local authorities, might relieve them of a


charge, because they would have the right at present, if they think the by-laws are not being observed, to prosecute offenders, and the grant of statutory authority to them would relieve them of the possibility of being surcharged in respect of their expenses.

4.23 p.m.

Captain Heilgers: The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said that the people on the spot would be the best people to do the work, and with that I agree, but I regret the omission of the county councils. A county council's, after all, a county parliament, it is the most influential body in the county, and in most cases—I may quote cinemas and rural housing—it has power to delegate its authority to urban district councils or rural district councils. Markets are often held in towns, and therefore the urban authorities may be the best people to deal with the matter, but there are cases in which markets are held in rural districts, and I do not regard rural district councils as authorities equally competent with the county councils to deal with markets. Apparently, the situation is to be different in Scotland, as under a later Amendment the Secretary of State for Scotland is proposing that precisely the opposite course shall be followed there. Therefore, I should like the Minister to explain why the Government have omitted the county council as the authority in this case, because most county councils have a very good agricultural staff and have the best knowledge of local conditions.

4.25 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: This little Amendment appears so much to bring about a delegation of powers as to set up two parallel authorities, the Commission and the local authority, both doing the same work. What I fear is that instead of saving the Commission work we shall have two lots of officials doing the same duties, with extra expense to the local authorities. I should like to be assured that the Commission will allow the local authorities to do the work.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I should like to make a reference to the point which has just been brought up by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte). I think

that the Clause, if it is amended in the way proposed, will be a curious Clause. Under the Clause as it stands the Commission have the power of inspection but no power of enforcement. Under the new Sub-section the local authority are to have the power of enforcement, and are also given the powers of the Commission, which are already in the Clause as it stands, in other words, the power of inspection. Therefore, the Clause will say that the Commission may inspect and, with the new Sub-section in it, that the local authority may inspect and enforce. If hon. Members will turn to Clause 48 they will find it is there laid down that:
It shall be the duty of the Commission to enforce the provisions of Parts IV and V of this Act.
and this Clause comes in Part IV:
and any order byelaws or scheme having effect by virtue of any of the said provisions.
Therefore, we are really setting up two authorities to do the same job, and I regard that as a bad thing. I think that whatever happens to-day with regard to this Clause and the proposed Amendment the Bill will ultimately need to be tidied up in relation to Clause 48, because nothing is more likely to lead to trouble than to have two independent authorities each with power to do the same thing. Such a state of affairs is often the cause of profound irritation and in the end it may be that neither party will enforce the law each thinking that the other is going to do it. Therefore I hope the Minister will look into this point.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. R. Acland: If this Amendment be carried, will the local authorities have this power in addition to the powers of the Commission, or in substitution for them? It seems to me that it would be a pity to cut out the powers of the Commission to inspect and to enforce. I think the way out would be to give the Commission power to delegate their powers, if they desire to do so, because that would enable them to employ the large staffs of inspectors and other officers who are now in the service of the local authorities.

4.29 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: In reply to the speeches which have just been made, I would remind the Committee that, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said, the purpose of the Amendment is to enable co-operation to


take place between the Commission and the local authorities in the enforcement of by-laws made under the Bill. The root of the matter is to be found in Clause 48, which places the responsibility for enforcing the Bill upon the Commission. Nothing in this Amendment or in any other provision of the Bill removes that ultimate responsibility from the Commission. If matters are left as they are there might be some risk of that duplication of staff to which hon. Members behind me have drawn attention. If the Commission, charged with the duty of enforcing by-laws, were unable to use the employes of the local authorities for the purpose, they would need to create an entirely separate staff of inspectors of their own for the purpose. It is precisely that duplication of officers and inspectors which it is the object of the Amendment to prevent.
The Amendment suggests that a local authority, which is already on the spot with inspectors who will have to attend markets in any case, may appropriately use them for this purpose in the way in which they are always being used, namely, enforcing by-laws. So far from this provision making for duplication, it enables the local authority to use existing officers on the spot and thus we avoid the necessity for fresh officials. I think this was the source of apprehension of the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland). I hope the matter is now clear. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Captain Heilgers) drew attention to the omission of the county councils from this list of local authorities, but they do not enforce market by-laws. The Amendment proposes no change in the existing system of inspection of markets and the enforcing of the by-laws.

Mr. Riley: Is the Amendment mandatory upon local authorities?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir.

Mr. Riley: If a local authority refuses to exercise these powers, do we understand that the Commission will have to take powers?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member has stated the position exactly.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: The two authorities will still do the same work. I

suggest the Commission should appoint the local authority as their agent, but as things stand at the present time there is no such appointment. In doing the work of the Commission on the spot the local authorities will only take over if they wish to do so.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I am afraid that I am still unhappy. It is the duty of the Commission, under Clause 48, to enforce the decision which they make, but if they decide to take no action, that does not in any way limit the powers of the local authority to take action separately. There may be cases where the Commission have decided that things should be left alone, but the local authority will decide to enforce what they think are their powers. The result is that you may have great lack of uniformity in the administration of the same law. I really do ask the Minister to consider whether, in another place, he could not consider the point which has just been made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte) that in the matter of the enforcement the local authority shall be the agent of the Commission and not independent. That would avoid the risks which some of us have in mind. We have had experience from time to time of individual local authorities adopting coercive methods and causing great local irritation.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Perhaps I ought to say to my hon. Friend that everything which he said will be considered, but I would point out to the Committee that this is no new position. At the present moment, under the law relating to diseases of animals, I find myself in the position in which the Commission will be under the Bill, and the local authorities have, at the same time, to enforce the orders which I make in regard to the diseases of animals. The two concurrent authorities go on perfectly smoothly together. The important point is to have the responsibility for enforcement upon one authority, and, in the case of diseases of animals, it is on me. The local authorities do sometimes prosecute and in other cases they prefer us to do so; it depends upon the magnitude of the offence. The Committee may rest quite satisfied that we are following a practice which has given rise to no difficulty in the past.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 27.—(Exercise of Commission's functions by local authorities or joint boards.)

4.37 P.m.

Mr. Wedderburn: I beg to move, in page 26, line 1, to leave out from "authority," to the end of line 5, and to insert:
other than a county council shall have power to enforce, within their area, the provisions of any slaughter-house scheme for the time being in force and, with a view to the enforcement of the scheme, any person authorised in writing in that behalf by a local authority having powers of enforcement under this Sub-section may, on producing his authority, enter and inspect at all reasonable times any such premises in the area to which the scheme applies as the local authority have reason for believing to be premises used for carrying on a slaughterhouse; but nothing in this Sub-section shall authorise the entry or inspection, on behalf of a local authority, of any premises outside the area of that local authority.
This is a small Amendment, like the one with which we have just dealt. It gives similar powers in respect of slaughter-houses and schemes under Clause 23. If we did not pass this Amendment a local authority might be surcharged for the expenses it incurred in co-operating with the Commission in carrying out decisions under these reorganisation schemes. Hon. Members will be glad to know that the powers conferred by the Amendment are not mandatory.

4.38 p.m.

Brigadier-General Brown: The Minister said that this was just the same principle, dealing with a very different thing. If I understand it aright the permission is given to local authorities to deal with a scheme itself. It says in the Amendment:
shall have power to enforce, within their area, the provisions of any slaughter-house scheme.
When you look at Clause 26 to see what such a scheme may mean, you see, in paragraph (b):
(b) to acquire such products of the slaughtering of livestock at that slaughterhouse (other than butcher's meat) as may be determined by or under the scheme, and.
This is a very big power for a Commission to delegate to a local authority, and raises a much more important principle

than the last Amendment. This Amendment deals with a very different case of delegating authority. The Commission ought to retain their authority at least as far as slaughter-houses are concerned. We have never yet had a definition of what the exact position is to be, and the Minister has always refused to give us one. In those circumstances the Commission will be handing over to local authorities some uncertain power which may be exercised to an unknown extent. That is very dangerous. I am quite willing to agree to the general point, as I think the local authority ought to have the power of looking after markets and so forth.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: A slaughter-house scheme may conceivably operate over a very wide area and therefore quite a substantial number of separate local authorities may be involved. Each of them is to be given power to enforce schemes within its area. I want to know what assurance we are to have that the different local authorities will enforce the same scheme in the same way in different parts of an area to which the scheme applies. There seems to be a complete lack of any centralised authority for a scheme. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have not much love for centralised slaughtering schemes, but if there is to be enforcement there ought to be uniformity. It seems to me that we will have a great lack of uniformity under the operation of the Amendment. My right hon. Friend said that this arrangement had worked very well in respect of diseases of animals, but in that case he does not have several individual authorities operating the same scheme. Some words ought to be added to make sure that there will be co-ordination in the working of the same scheme.

Sir Robert Tasker: Would not many of these schemes be better if there were a definition?

4.41 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I would submit to my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) that it is only possible to have a variety of local authorities within the area of any slaughter-house scheme where you have more than one slaughter-house as part of a scheme. If you have only one great experimental slaughter-


house, that will be within the area of one local authordity. If a central scheme deals with other slaughter-houses apart from the big central one, which will still have to continue its business and form part of the central scheme, there will not be a variety of local authorities operating and enforcing such by-laws, except so far as they are enforcing bylaws on slaughter-houses within their own particular areas. I am hoping that where we have a really big central experimental slaughter-house we will not have little fiddling slaughter-houses operating everywhere around the area. If Part IV is to be of any value at all there will have to be central slaughterhouse schemes and not a multiplicity of slaughter-houses here, there and everywhere.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: It the hon. Member will look at Clause 24 he will find that it is contemplated that there may be other slaughter-houses in the area, and in that case there are all sorts of things you may do. In the case, for example, where you
give from time to time, in relation to any premises approved as aforesaid, such directions with respect to the classes and number of animals which may be slaughtered on the premises as the Commission consider desirable,
surely, you want to have some central control, and not have a local authority giving orders which are in conflict with what the Commission has already decided upon. We are asking for trouble and confusion unless we allow one authority for one central scheme.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: The Minister said that this Amendment is similar to the previous Amendment, but power is delegated to authorities who do not appear in the first Amendment. I think they should appear in the second Amendment.

4.44 p.m.

Major Dorman-Smith: I understand that a scheme will he prepared in its entirety and will be submitted, and that there are various formalities and so on, but if there is no possibility of a scheme being varied by local authorities, then I agree that what has been pointed out is a situation that we must avoid. But how can a scheme be carried out unless everybody knows how it is to be carried out?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: There can be no doubt at all that no local authority can

vary a scheme. The scheme is one scheme for the whole of the area to which it applies. It cannot be amended at the instance of any local authority, no matter what its jurisdiction is. For that reason I think hon. Members are perhaps a little over-apprehensive of the possibility of lack of uniformity in this matter.
The object of the Amendment is, as my hon. Friend said, exactly the same as that of the one that preceded it. It is to enable the officers of local authorities to enforce parts of the scheme which apply to their particular duties. If hon. Members will look at Clause 27, they will see that it deals with the cases where the Commission's functions can, by delegation, be entrusted to local authorities or joint boards. If the Commission actually does delegate its functions to a local authority, of course, such a local authority would have to discharge the duties delegated to it, with all the Commission's powers, and for that reason I think that, if hon. Members will put this Amendment in its proper place in the Bill, namely, in Sub-section (2), they will see that there can be no lack of uniformity. The object of the Amendment is to prevent inspectors, on the one hand appointed by the Commission and on the other hand appointed by local authorities, performing the same duties in the same area. For these reasons, I hope the Committee will let us have the Amendment.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. Barnes: I do not think the Minister's explanation quite explains why he is deleting the simple language already in Sub-section (2) of the Clause arid substituting this rather involved language. I would like to have from the Minister his explanation of the advantages of the new language, and, apart from the assurance that we shall obtain uniformity, we have had no such explanation. If we turn to Sub-section (2), which it is proposed to delete, we see that the language there is very clear and specific. It says that the local authority
shall have power to enforce the provisions of the scheme within the limits of the local authority's jurisdiction.
I am not necessarily opposing the Amendment. What we desire is a clear explanation from the Minister of its advantages and the significance of the language which it substitutes for the language in the Bill, in so far as it contains the words:


the provisions of any slaughter-house scheme for the time being in force.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I think the short answer that I can give to the hon. Member is that I am advised that the new language is more apt to clothe with the proper authority officers of local authorities who may wish, at the instance of their bodies, to co-operate with the Commission in this matter. The Amendment sets out in somewhat greater detail the powers which are now to be conferred upon the officers of the local authorities. It is clear that a local authority inside its own area can authorise a proper inspector who will have the powers with which inspectors are normally clothed to enter into any premises which it is desired to inspect.

Mr. Barnes: Does this intervention of local authorities cover their public health powers only?

Mr. Morrison: No. The real instance that I can imagine where a local authority inspector could effectively co-operate in the enforcement of a slaughter-house scheme would be as follows: If under the scheme certain slaughter-houses within the area of the local authority have to be closed and then the ordinary health or sanitary inspector employed by the local authority, going round the area, finds that in fact one of them is open, he can, as a common informer, if the law is left as it stands, without any Amendment prosecute such a person criminally before a bench of magistrates, but if this Amendment is accepted, it will enable the local authority itself, acting in its own right, to enforce the provisions of the scheme instead of prosecuting in a criminal proceeding. The language used is, as the hon. Member for East Ham South (Mr. Barnes) says, a little more involved in appearance, but I am advised that it is more apt to clothe the officers of local authorities with the necessary authority and also to prevent any doubt as to their functions vis-à-vis the officers of the Commission.

Brigadier-General Brown: Does this Clause give the local authorities the same powers as the Commission have under Clause 26, paragraphs (b) and (c), which give permission to sell and so forth? Would not a local authortiy get those powers which the Commission have under that Clause?

Mr. Morrison: No. My hon. and gallant Friend can rest quite assured upon that point All the powers to which he has referred me in the previous Clause arise out of this scheme and can only be vested by the scheme in whomsoever they are vested.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 46.—(Incidental provisions as to orders, regulations and schemes.)

4.52 p.m.

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 40, line 4, at the end, to insert:
(d) for securing that where, by virtue of the order or scheme or of anything done in pursuance of or in consequence of its provisions, any person employed otherwise than in the permanent service of a local authority in connection with any market undertaking or auction or slaughter-house suffers any direct pecuniary loss by reason of the termination of his employment in that connection, then, unless some other provision for compensating him for that loss is made by an Act for the time being in force, or by any instrument having effect by virtue of an Act, compensation for that loss shall be paid to him by the employer in accordance with such principles as may be determined by the order or scheme; and
(e) for requiring the Commission to pay to any person the amount of any sums which that person is obliged to pay by way of compensation under any provisions of the order or scheme having effect by virtue of the preceding paragraph.
The Amendment raises, a matter of great importance to a considerable body of persons who are likely to be affected under the administration of the Commission which is to be set up by the Bill. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) appeared to be somewhat concerned as to whether we desired to claim the whole of the advantage for moving this Amendment. I should like to acknowledge the stand that he took on this matter in Committee upstairs, and I trust that he and those associated with him will stand equally firm on this occasion. The purpose of the Bill is to reorganise the livestock industry, and an examination of the Bill indicates that ample—one would almost say meticulous —provisions are made to see that no person holding any property or professional interest in this industry shall suffer in any respect. If a market is affected by any proposal of reorganisation, any person who may have an interest in the


land or the market rights or an auctioneer's business in that market is to be compensated under the Bill. In the event of any central slaughter-house scheme being created, then again anyone whose business interests are affected by the operation of that scheme will find his interests amply provided for in the way of compensation. But in securing reorganisation, if any workman, or any person whose livelihood depends more or less on manual labour is displaced by the operation of any reorganisation scheme, no provision whatsoever is made for the compensation of that individual loss of livelihood.
In the Standing Committee upstairs we had to enter our very firm and strong protest at a Bill being passed which secured the payment of compensation to every interest affected by the Bill except those whose livelihood would be displaced by loss of employment. We think it is high time that Parliament should recognise the principle that a person who loses his livelihood as a result of legislation which Parliament deems to be in the interest of the nation as a whole, or of a particular industry, should be compensated for that loss of livelihood. The Minister, in replying to our Amendment in Committee, stated what was, in his opinion, the difference between a person whose livelihood is displaced and a business interest. He said:
The reason for the distinction for compensation for loss of business is this: the Act deliberately prevents a man from carrying on his business. It does not merely change it and make it easy for him to open another business; it closes him down altogether. The workman is in a different position."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C), 8th April, 1937; cols. 729–30.]
I fail to see how the workman is in a different position in circumstances of this character. If an auctioneer is closed down in a particular market, more often than not he has a business or a professional interest in some neighbouring market, or in a number of markets, and the closing down of a particular market may in fact add to the value of the branch of his business in some other market. If, however, you take the case of an employé in a particular market, it is almost impossible for him to move to a neighbouring or a distant market and to find employment in the same industry. As a matter of fact, reorganisation of this kind does not add to the manual labour

in an industry; it invariably reduces the number of persons who are employed for wages in an industry. Therefore, a person whose livelihood is definitely displaced by the operation of this Measure is less likely to find employment in his trade than is anyone with a professional interest. The person who gets compensation for the closing down of his business, or for the loss of any land interest that he may have in a concern of this character, gets a capital payment and is able to invest that capital sum in industry and to ensure for himself the continuation of an income, or of part of an income, that is commensurate with the income that is lost. But in the case of the workman no capital sum and no guarantee of future employment is given, and we feel that, as the Minister alleges that this Measure closes down the business of some firm or undertaking, in the same way it will close down the livelihood of the persons employed in that business. It is difficult to understand why we should not meet the same obligation by way of compensation.
We feel the injustice of the attitude of the Minister on this matter because, at the same time that he refused to accept the principle of this Amendment, he accepted an Amendment to pay compensation to established employes of a local authority if they should be affected by the operation of any of these reorganisation proposals. In the case of employeés on the established staff of a local authority the principle of compensation is met; in the case of the auctioneer's professional business the principle of compensation is met; in the case of a person who is engaged in business the principle of compensation is met; in the case of anyone with a landed interest in a market the principle of compensation is met; and we desire to establish the principle for the workman in a trade as well.
During the post-war period Parliament has been engaged to a very substantial degree in developing this principle of compensation, and I feel that it is essential that, at every stage at which Parliament concedes the right of compensation for property, the point which I am making in this Amendment should also be pressed. Soon we shall be endorsing the principle of compensation for the coal royalty owners in this country. We have endorsed the principle of compensation for the


owners of slum property when their property has to be cleared away in the interests of public health, public decency and public living accommodation. If a street has to be widened or a public highway cut for the benefit of the community or the convenience of the nation, we do not hesitate to compensate, and compensate lavishly, those people who are being disturbed. If a public house has to be closed down, the trade has to compensate the business that is closed. In all unification schemes where property is affected we concede this right of compensation. In the Sugar Industry Reorganisation Act we even went to the extent of paying compensation to various sugar companies to enable them to pay back the debt that they owed to the State under the Trade Facilities Act.
One cannot but contrast all these instances and examples of the carefulness and regard of the House of Commons for the owners of property with its callousness towards workmen whose only means of livelihood is their labour and employment. I suggest that there are very few owners of property or businesses who have not their eggs distributed in more than one basket, so that, if some interest of theirs is injured by legislation, it is seldom that it affects the whole income of the company or persons; but, if a workman is displaced by these reorganisation proposals of Parliament, he is very often turned out of employment, sometimes when he is of middle age or past middle age, and the future is pretty hopeless for him. I trust that the House of Commons itself will be more favourable towards this proposal than was the Standing Committee upstairs, and will request the Minister to acknowledge the principle.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I support this Amendment, and hope that the Minister will give it his favourable consideration. As I covered the Order Paper of the Committee upstairs with numerous Amendments, and then, owing to the accident of Parliamentary choice, was unable to be a Member of the Committee, perhaps the Minister will give more favourable consideration to what I say, as I was not at the Committee, than he may to the remarks of some other Members. I very much hope that he will consider this Amendment seriously and

sympathetically. In the course of his reply in the Committee upstairs he said there were numerous precedents for compensating the employés of local authorities when they lost their jobs through some rationalisation scheme, and the inference was drawn from that remark that there were no precedents for compensating employés of private employers in the event of similar displacement. I do not know whether the Minister has in mind now the various electricity schemes, which certainly provide some precedents, and Section 73 of the London Passenger Transport Act contains provisions which are very germane to this Amendment. It provides for compensation for
an officer or servant of a local authority, company or person specified in the Second Schedule of this Act.
Those companies or persons, as the Committee will know, included any number of small independent omnibus undertakings, and, the House having recognised their claim to compensation under that Act, I cannot see why in fairness similar regard should not be paid now to persons who will be affected by the provisions of the present Bill. Therefore, I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to see his way to accept the Amendment.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I should like to reinforce the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), whose Amendment it was that I moved in the Committee upstairs. After a long debate, I did not receive any support from my own side, though it was rather significant that on that occasion more Members deliberately abstained from voting than in any previous Division upstairs. It was clear that a good many agricultural Members on my side had much sympathy with my Amendment, but did not quite like the idea of the money coming out of the Cattle Fund, and it was the fear that the compensation would come out of the Cattle Fund that was, I think, the reason why I did not receive more support than I did. It is a little difficult to understand every one of the provisions of this Bill, but, if I correctly interpret the Bill, any compensation that would be payable under this Amendment would, so far as Part IV is concerned, come out of the levy, and, so far as Part V is concerned, would come from the fortunate proprietor of the


monopolist central slaughterhouse. None of it, I understand, would come out of the Cattle Fund. As that doubt has been, I hope, completely resolved, those of my hon. Friends who either abstained or reluctantly voted against me upstairs will now have the opportunity of signifying their support, since the only reason for their hesitation is now removed.
Let us bear in mind that there are precedents in the Bill itself. As the Mover of the Amendment has pointed out, every other interest is compensated, including the permanent workpeople of a local authority, and my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) has just reminded me that the Railways Act of 1921, which brought about the amalgamation of the railways of this country into the four big groups, contains the most elaborate provisions for the compensation of displaced workers, while my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedford has just drawn attention to the fact that the Electricity Supply Acts and the London Passenger Transport Act also contained provisions for the compensation of displaced work-people. Since we had our discussion upstairs, I have received a letter from just the kind of individual that I was imagining—the somewhat elderly clerk, who has been with the same firm of auctioneers for some 30 or more years, and whose chance of getting a new job is almost nil if he loses his existing job. We all know how terribly difficult it is for a man of 50 or 55, who has been in one job all his life, to make a new start, and that is the kind of person whom I have principally in mind. I am not very much worried about the young people, who do not find it very difficult to move elsewhere, but I am always horrified when I find an elderly man who has been displaced through some reorganisation or amalgamation.
There is not a Member of the House who has not from time to time had a pathetic letter from a constituent describing the circumstances of a man who has worked faithfully for many years, whose firm, perhaps, has got into difficulties, it may be through nobody's fault, and has been obliged to cut down its staff, with the result that some of the elderly people have had to go—people whom the employer may not have been in a position to take any steps to look after. We are now, by State action, bring-

ing about a number of these cases, and I think the House of Commons ought to make very sure before it allows a Bill to become law on terms which will create a number of new pathetic tragedies among decent, elderly people in small country towns. I can see many of them in my mind's eye at the moment, and we have all had from time to time letters from people of that type. In the interests of these people I most earnestly beg the Committee to consider very carefully before they decide to vote against this Amendment.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. Leslie: I desire to support the Amendment. The Bill makes provision for compensation for owners of property, auctioneers, and other interests, but it makes no such provision for the humble employé who is deprived of his livelihood. Why should vested interests be considered sacrosanct and the worker's living be of no concern? I have had experience of what happened as a result of amalgamations and trustifications shortly after the War, where one found that men who had given 20 or 30 years' faithful service, and who, by their tact, initiative and ability, had helped to build up prosperous businesses, were, when amalgamation and trustification took place, suddenly thrown on the scrap-heap without any possibly prospect of obtaining other employment, for the simple reason that they had been too long with one particular firm. Where that happens in a small town or village, what chance has an individual in such circumstances of being able to secure employment?
Many of these men had been in good positions, earning incomes over the limit for unemployment insurance; they had sometimes purchased their houses, perhaps on mortgage, and their children were attending secondary schools. They had to get rid of their houses and to take their children away from the secondary schools, and, having no employment, they had to appeal for Poor Law relief. Those who were covered by unemployment insurance were only entitled to benefit for 26 weeks, and they received nothing after that. Besides, what does unemployment benefit really amount to when a man has to keep a wife and family? Where is the justice of giving compensation to these other interests, and


not to the men whose living will be taken from them? As has been pointed out already, there are provisions to this effect in the Electricity Act, the Railways Act and the London Passenger Transport Act. Here is a case where the State itself is going to deprive people of their livelihood, and I say that, if these other interests are entitled to compensation, surely the man who is thrown on the scrap-heap and has nothing coming in ought to be considered. I hope that the Committee will decide in favour of this Amendment.

5.15 p.m

Sir Ernest Shepperson: Many of us are sympathetic towards the principle of the Amendment, but what we are concerned with is that the Cattle Fund should not have to bear such costs as will decrease the amount going to producers. I should like an assurance from the Minister that he is quite sure that any compensation that is paid under this will not come from the Cattle Fund. There is another point. If the fund from which compensation is paid is one contributed to by auctioneers in other markets, will they not pass on the cost again to the producers of cattle, so that in meeting the increased costs that the Commissioners are going to meet by this compensation, will not the producers be, in fact, paying a contribution?

5.16 p.m.

Mr. Sexton: In the Committee an Amendment to compensate officers and servants of local authorities was agreed to with alacrity by the Minister and incorporated in the Bill. Several of my hon. Friends expressed surprise at the reluctance of the Minister to agree to compensate manual workers or auctioneers' clerks. I said that I was appalled at the differentiation between officers of local authorities, land owners, owners of market rights and auctioneers and the men who did the hard manual graft, who had no financial resources and who were to be left out in the cold. Many of these workers are getting on in years and most of them are uninsured. They have no recourse to unemployment benefit. The only thing they can do, if they are thrown out of their jobs, is to appeal to public assistance. We on this side would have supported the Amendment to pay

compensation to servants of local authorities if it had been put to the vote, because we believe that compensation for people who lose their jobs is a sound principle. It was said that this was doing it piecemeal, but until the whole question of compensation is decided by the House there is no need for the innocent victim to be penalised. The people who are going to receive compensation under the Bill have very often sufficient financial resources to see them through bad times till they get more work, but these elderly uninsured people are not in that happy position.

5.19 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: I hope we shall not have the same position under this Bill that we had under the Electricity Act, where all the well-to-do interests were entered for compensation whilst those who were not well paid were denied it. In the year following the passing of that Act we were forced to pass a Private Members' Measure to effect our object. In that case the compensation goes a little further than this Amendment. I wish the Amendment included not only loss of employment but the worsening of conditions. I am surprised that at this time of day there should be found any opposition to this proposal. It is really unjust that in the case of people not in the same position as those for whom we are speaking there should be such a readiness, in fact such a determination, that they shall receive compensation. Even if they were entitled to benefit under Unemployment Insurance or any other scheme, they would still in fairness and in justice be entitled to compensation. It may be said that people have invested some of their capital in the concern. These people have invested all their capital—their labour power—and they have a right, if there is any justice left in the country, to be compensated. If the Bill goes through without some such provision, it will be a discredit upon the Government.

5.22 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Agnew: I appeal to the Minister to reconsider any decision that he may have made. When so many interests are being properly compensated for action taken by Parliament, there is a strong case for what must be, after all, a comparatively small number of men who may suffer unless the Amendment is carried. These are not vast masses of


industrial workers, of whom it might properly be said that, when they lose their employment, unemployment insurance would be the appropriate remedy. It will be a very small number who will once and for all suffer loss of employment. Whether the cost of this will have to be borne by the Cattle Fund or in some other way, I hope the Minister will be able to grant this concession. Even if it were borne by the Cattle Fund, I feel sure that the best part of the agricultural industry would rather that justice were done to a small number of men than they should be left out of the scheme of compensation.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Riley: We are not asking in this Amendment for an extravagant sum in order to provide employés with pensions for the rest of their lives. We are asking for similar provision to that made for loss accruing to an owner of land or an auctioneer through the closing of a market "as may be determined by the order or scheme." This is a very reasonable point of view. No one can question that there is a flagrant inequity in an Act of Parliament providing for certain classes of persons who are going to be disturbed in a reorganisation and singling out the employés as the only persons who are to suffer pecuniary loss—singling out every other section for compensation and leaving the ordinary employes without any at all. Such a distinction is entirely indefensible. It may be that many of the persons affected have no experience whatever of any other class of work. On all grounds I suggest that the Minister should at least take power to provide this compensation.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I have listened with great attention and sympathy to the appeals that have been made to me. If I were dealing with my own money instead of other peoples, I should probably adopt a different attitude from that which I ask the Committee to adopt. We frequently have to face problems which make a great appeal to our sympathy when they are confined apparently to a narrow compass, but we have to ask ourselves, how will this little action that is proposed here, if we accept it, affect other cases? Will it be regarded as a precedent for wide and sweeping changes which some of its proposers have

not foreseen? The Amendment was fully discussed in Committee and negatived. May I state the reasons that I advanced then against it? I should like, in the first place, to clear up one matter which has been put to the Committee as an apparent inconsistency and novelty in the different treatment that we have meted out to employés of local authorities and employés of private persons. I accepted an Amendment to enable local authorities to pay compensation to persons in their employment if they were excluded from that employment by the operation of the Bill. I did so for these two very good reasons: In the first place, unless that Amendment had been accepted and the law altered to that degree, it would have been illegal and impossible for any local authority to disburse its funds in payment of compensation. That is the one big difference. No alteration in the law is necessary to enable any private employer to make some provision for his employés if he wishes to do so. There is no disability upon him as there is upon a local authority in that respect.
The second reason why I differentiate between private employers and local authorities—and public utilities rank very much the same—is that, we have in the past, time and time again, recognised that peculiar degree of permanence and pensionability about the employés of local authorities, and we have made provision on many occasions for compensation, when, by Act of Parliament, this apparently permanent employment has terminated. The question is, shall we carry this provision into the wide arena of private employment? Shall we take the step of giving a statutory right of compensation to every individual up and down the land whose employment is affected because of some change in Government policy or some action of that sort? [Interruption.] I understand that in the State which the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) holds out as our desideratum, such a policy would perhaps be adopted, and no doubt that might be one of the good points which would counteract its equally numerous, and perhaps more numerous, bad points.

Mr. Gallacher: What are the bad points?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member will not expect me to argue upon the basis that his system of society is the one with


which we are dealing. What is the difference between these societies? The hon. Member's interruption is perfectly timely, because it contrasts the different views of society which are in his mind and in my mind when I ask the Committee not to take the very important step of accepting this novel Amendment.

Mr. Kelly: It is not novel.

Mr. Morrison: As to its novelty, hon. Members have given certain instances of the Electricity Commission, the amalgamation of London Passenger Transport, and the railway amalgamations, and have put that before me as an example of ordinary private employment such as that which we are now considering. We all know that the statutory utility companies which deal with the large-scale provision of services are in an entirely different category from the private butcher or private auctioneer or whoever else may be affected by this Bill.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the case of half a dozen omnibuses being taken over under the London Passenger Transport is analogous to large undertakings?

Mr. Morrison: In the case of large amalgamations, the railways offer an exact case in point. When you amalgamated the railways you said that there should be no more railways. All the railways were closed down with the exception of those which were incorporated or were amalgamated into a particular group. The railways consisted of the national reorganisation of the whole transport system. Let me get back to what is the main issue, and deal with it in all seriousness.

Mr. Barnes: Surely, when the central slaughter-houses scheme is created it will be a monopoly, as in the case of railways?

Mr. Morrison: I will come back to the question of central slaughter-houses in a moment, but I do not want to be diverted on these small points from the Amendment upon which the Committee have to make up their mind. I return to the interruption of the hon. Member for West Fife. The actual point is that the system with which we are dealing in this country at the present moment is a free system, in which employment by private individuals is contractual, is free and is

temporary. There are two sides to the bargain. In ordinary cases, they make the bargain on the basis that the contract shall be terminable at the will of either party, and that is fundamental in the present state of society, which is made clear if one examines the whole of our history and the present conditions. The workman enters into a bargain to keep the contract, but he claims, and clings tenaciously to, his right to withdraw his services if the conditions of employment cease to please him. All our trade union system in the country is based upon the fact that there is free association between those who employ and those who are employed. I suggest very strongly to the Committee that, before they take a step of this character and attach some condition to the Livestock Industry Bill to change this system, they will reflect seriously upon what is likely to be the effect of such a condition.

Mr. Attlee: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman has omitted to notice the difference that here the State has stepped in by legislation to alter the conditions of employment, and that is precisely the reason why compensation was adopted under the Electricity Act.

Mr. Morrison: I have already said that I consider electricity undertakings, public utilities and local authorities—many of these electricity undertakings are in fact run by local authorities—as Parliament in the past considered them, in a special category. Hon. Members opposite are asking me to enlarge what has always been accepted as being a special character of employment because of its permanence in the whole system of society. I do not expect everyone in the Committee to agree with me, but I want to make clear the vital importance of the matter, so that we shall have no doubt about it whether we think it right or wrong. I suggest to the Committee that they ought to be very careful. When terms of ordinary employment are contracted for, it is on the basis that the employment shall be temporary and governed by the contract of service. The workman says, "I will go as soon as it pleases me; as soon as I can legally." The employer says, "When I can go no further with this business—my business may fail—I am under no obligation to compensate you." That is the basis upon which the contract is made. It is upon those terms,


arid upon no other, that the remuneration and the contract of service and all its details are perfected.
I am asked to interfere with free service by contract, and to attach the statutory right of compensation to a man who, under his contract of service, does not possess it. Where is it to stop? Suppose that you get any system of reorganisation or rationalisation of any great industry in this country, is it to be said in every case that everyone who is affected is to be compensated? I ask hon. Members who think that that is the view, How far are you going to carry it? If we impose sanctions on Italy as we did in the recent case under the Legaue of Nations, are we to be told that everybody who suffers by a policy of that character is to be compensated? If you have, as you have here, a contractual system of employment, temporary on both sides, with the workman claiming his undoubted right to withdraw his employment, how are you to assess the damage done in cases of this character? If a man is employed in a slaughterhouses and loses his employment through the operation of this Bill, how are you to say that it is through that fact that he has lost his employment? How are you to say how long he would have been there, and how are you to compensate him for something which is so indefinite?
I should like to refer the Committee to what I said when I started. It is not because of any great hardship or burden on public funds that this would involve, and it is not because of any lack of sympathy with the persons involved, but simply because of the principles involved that I reject the totalitarian conception of society under which men are not free to bargain about their employment. Men would not be free to bargain with their employers, with the assistance of the organisations of their trade unions, and it is that free association which ought to be retained.
The two classes of employés to whom references have been made are those employed by auctioneers as clerks, on the one hand, and those employed in private slaughter-houses, on the other. We shall come at a later stage to a new Clause which enables a service scheme for compensation to be undertaken by the auctioneers themselves on a national scale, if they so desire. They can, if

they so desire, embody in the service scheme conditions for the compensation of their employés. But I have no power to compel them to make such provision unless I am prepared to compel every one up and down the country to drop the free contract of service. I should like the Committee to be reassured as to the facts with regard to those who are employed in the slaughter-houses. I do not believe that there will be any great displacement of labour because of the introduction of experimental slaughter-houses. I am advised that there is actually a shortage of skilled labour in the slaughtering trade, and if in any area one of these abattoirs is erected and certain slaughter-houses are closed down, I have little doubt that the slaughtermen will get opportunities of employment in the central slaughter-house with perhaps better conditions of service than those they have enjoyed in other employment.
I will deal with another reason why we should not accept the Amendment. It has been said—I confess with a show of reason—that here you are compensating the business and not the man who may be affected indirectly. That is a point which has to be met. I ask the Committee to see how different is the effect of the Bill upon the business, on the one hand, and the employé on the other. The Bill says of the business that not only shall this particular part of its work cease, but that the whole thing has to stop, and must not start again. In the case of the workman there is no interference with his right to work, but in the case of the business there is the interference with the right to carry on or to go elsewhere.

Mr. Gallacher: Can he start in business?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member must recognise that inside the area of a livestock market order a business may not only be closed down but it may be prevented from opening anywhere else in that region. A business, if it is to be a business at all, is tied to its place. As I said in Committee, it is like a person adscriptus glebae; it must have a local habitation and a name, if it is to have a good will which is one of the elements of a good business. By closing it down in one place you not only interfere with its working but you destroy its right to exist. That is quite different from the position of a man whose right to earn


his living is not altered or affected by this Bill.
I am trying to make my attitude clear. I have no lack of sympathy and have no desire whatsoever to shirk the issue involved, but what is now being asked, this granting of a statutory right of compensation to persons in private employment, however desirable it may be, is not the system under which we are working at the present time. It might have very far-reaching consequences once it were conceded, and for that reason I am not willing to take the step of introducing such a precedent into the Livestock Industry Bill.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: This has been a very remarkable Debate. Only four hon. Members from the benches opposite have spoken and three of them were out-and-out supporters of the Amendment, because they felt that discrimination had already gone too far. They made out an admirable case for the Amendment. The fourth hon. Member made no reference to the principle of compensation for displaced employés. What he said, in effect, was this: "I am more concerned about the Cattle Fund of £5,000,000 per annum than I am either about the employes that will retain their jobs or those that may be dismissed." He was certainly sympathetic but his sympathies stopped if it meant going beyond that point and meant interference with the Cattle Fund. We can at least say that there has been three speeches to one in favour of the Amendment from the Government side, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, in view of that fact, will allow a free vote when the Amendment is put. It has been said on many occasions that when the House is moved on great principles it can never do wrong if it is allowed a free vote, and I think this is one of those occasions when a free vote ought to be allowed.
The right hon. Gentleman has restated the principle of the Socialist case as I have tried to understand it for a good many years. He tells us, in effect, that the nation is divided into two sections, one, comparatively small, which is engaged by local authorities and enjoys permanent economic security, and the other and larger section which has the privilege of free bargaining with em-

ployers for whom they can either work or whom they can leave just as they desire, and he argues that he does not want to cut across this free institution. Trade unions enter into bargains with employers, we are told, and there is no law to prevent the employer from compensating one of his employés if he should be displaced. There is no law to compel him to compensate him. The free institution to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is sound up to a point, but there is a colliery within 10 miles of my house where on 12 occasions men have come together to form a local branch of a trade union. They have elected a president, secretary, treasurer and committee, and on 10 different occasions within a week of those men forming their branch of the trade unions they have all been sacked. That is at Harworth Colliery. So there is no free institution universally in this country.
When the right hon. Gentleman discriminates between a person who can take employment for three months, three years, or 15 weeks with a private employer, and a local authority employé, I would ask him where is the difference? In my own division I can recall a case within the last year or two where an electrician employed by a local authority found that he had become redundant as a result of the onward march of the Electricity Act, 1927. He was paid £200 or £300 compensation, on the basis of the number of years he happened to have been engaged by that authority. There was nothing to prevent him from leaving that job after having given the appropriate month's notice, either in January, June or December. He was just as free to leave as the miner who works down the pit or the railwayman who works on the railway. Therefore, there is no difference between these men. This House in its wisdom provided compensation for that electrician who worked for the local authority when he was displaced as a result of rationalisation. Where, therefore, is the difference between the local authority and the private employer when the position of equitable treatment comes in? I do not see any difference.
The right hon. Gentleman said that we live under a certain system in this country—he did not say a certain economic system—and that it works out like this: If a person is employed by a local


authority you regard him as being perfectly secure, and for all practical purposes he will work for that local authority until the day he dies or until the day he retires on superannuation. Why does the right hon. Gentleman assume that the person engaged by the local authority will remain in their employment or in the employment of some other local authority where superannuation benefits are transferred from one authority to another, and at the same time assume that other workmen will be leaving their employment every day in the week or every month in the year and therefore, one need not worry about compensation for them? Workmen leave their employment only to improve themselves. If a man is working either in London, Birmingham, Manchester or Timbuctoo and he can improve his position or find a greater measure of security, he goes.
In restating the Socialist case the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps inadvertently or perhaps unconsciously, restated what was said upstairs. He implied that there is no such thing as security of employment for the ordinary physical worker. Therefore, in passing a Measure of this description and providing £5,000,000 per annum, which is a fairly generous gesture, for the cattle producers, if we were to create a precedent by making provision for a comparatively small number of ordinarily engaged persons, so that they can have compensation if they are displaced, he asks where is it going to land us. I appreciate the point of the right hon. Gentleman's question, and I reply, "Why was compensation started?" Speaking for hon. Members on this side my point is that what we desire is the right to work at all times and in any circumstances. We are not asking for compensation to make people rich when they happen to lose their jobs. We would prefer that if a man or a number of men were displaced from their jobs as the result of rationalisation or improvement in the efficiency and technique of industry, that immediately another job should be waiting for them. Under a rational system that would be the case and compensation would not be neceessary, but Governments with the mentality of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) have always been prepared to discriminate to the disadvantage of the paid worker.
In this Bill the Government provide compensation for the auctioneer if he loses part of his trade, compensation for the man who owns land adjoining the slaughter-houses, compensation for Uncle Tom Cobley and all, but no compensation for the poor old worker, as is always the case. If there had been no such thing as compensation for loss of office in Act after Act this Amendment would not have been on the Order Paper. It is because the party opposite has been discriminating for generations that not only we on this side but people outside are beginning to worry at this discrimination against the poorest of the poor. But when we make a plea for fair treatment the right hon. Gentleman asks us where this precedent will land us. Let it take us where it will. If the principle is right, the right hon. Gentleman ought to concede it at once. If as a result of accepting this precedent it is found that the question of compensation is leading to general chaos and destruction, then let us retrace our steps. Let us go back to the starting point and cease to discriminate. We shall probably save £66,000,000 if we go back to the starting point and pay no compensation in any form or other.
The right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members opposite have accepted the principle of compensation, and we say that they ought to be logical, and that if a person is not guaranteed by the State any right to work, then he ought to be granted compensation, despite the consequences of the precedent referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. In view of what the right hon. Gentleman's own supporters have said to-day he ought to disregard the consequences arid do the thing because he believes the principle is right. He tells us that he has sympathy. My reply is that the most sincere people on earth are the biggest danger to the general community. I should like to see that sympathy translated into this Measure in order to give that element of justice to the workers which has so far been denied to them.

5.59 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: I should not have attempted to speak but for the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. When the Act of 1927 was before Parliament exactly the same question was put by a Liberal Peer in another place, asking how far it would take the community if compensation was


given to the weekly wage-earner. It was clearly laid down that they were entitled to compensation if they lost their position. The right hon. Gentleman made the point that in every other case where compensation was paid it was paid to people employed by public bodies. That is not so. Many of those who receive compensation under other Acts of Parliament are employed by private employers, and if it is right in their case to pay compensation, then it is right in the present case. The point was also made that auctioneers and others would not be entitled to engage in the same business in the same area. That may be so, but they will not be barred from investing in some other concern or engaging in some other branch of work to get a livelihood for themselves and their families. The right hon. Gentleman was in rather a poor way for something to defend the position he has taken up, of refusing to give compensation to these weekly wage-earners. Those who are displaced will be compelled to seek employment elsewhere. They may secure it in the same neighbourhood, but it is not right for them to be turned adrift merely because an Act of Parliament says that there is no further need for their labour. If Parliament says that, then it is the duty of Parliament to see that they receive compensation. That is surely the justice of the case, and the fear that compensation might be demanded by other people is not a sufficient reason for the House refusing it to these people. I am amazed that the right hon. Gentleman should say that we must sacrifice the justice of the case because something else may happen.

6.3 p.m.

Major Hills: The hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) as usual has made a very able speech, but he skated lightly and cleverly over the main objection to the Amendment. If I had an opportunity for research I could find cases where people employed in private employment have received compensation when legislation has brought their employment to an end. It is certainly the case of those employed by public utility companies and by local authorities. But the real difficulty which is in the minds of most hon. Members is that by accepting the Amendment we should be putting an unknown charge on the Cattle Fund.

I do not know what that charge may be, but in the end I think it would be a very substantial amount, and I am quite sure that is the consideration which moves most hon. Members. As far as the case of sympathy with those who will leave their employment is concerned, that has been well and very forcibly made, but no hon. Member has dealt with what lies at the root of the problem. The Bill is to help the cattle industry. Its methods do not appeal to hon. Members opposite as they do to hon. Members on this side of the Committee. Are we to lay an unknown burden on the Cattle Fund which might be so large as to hinder the beneficial action of the Bill? That is the question which should be answered and which is in the mind of a large majority of hon. Members.

Mr. Leslie: The right hon. and gallant Member says that the compensation may come from the Cattle Fund, from the £5,000,000. Where does the compensation for auctioneers and others come from? [HON. MEMBERS: "From the levy."] Why does not this compensation come from the same source?

6.6 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: I intervene only because of the extraordinary performance of the Minister of Agriculture in replying to the Debate. He said that his unwillingness to accept the Amendment was that it would put an end to freedom of contract as between employer and employed. It does not do anything of the kind. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to come to that conclusion when he replied to an interruption by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). The Amendment has nothing whatever to do with freedom of contract, and I hope the Government will reconsider their decision. The Bill will put many people out of a job. It is a Government Bill that is doing that. The man's employer does not want to get rid of him; it is not a case of trouble between employer and employed. They are getting on all right together, but the State intervenes and makes an alteration which is responsible for the employer saying that he will have to dispense with his services. Surely, in those circumstances the man is entitled to say that the State which is throwing him out of his job, directly, should provide him with compensation. He is in precisely the same position as his employer.


His employer is to be compensated, but the Government say that the employer is tied to a particular village or town or area, and is not to start another business in that area. But the employé cannot get a job in that area either. He has to change to some other form of activity. His employer, who is receiving compensation, may go into an entirely different line of business in the area, just as the employé may have to get a job in a different line of business. They are in the same position. There is one argument which interests me very much. The right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) says that they have sympathy with these people, but the trouble is that it may be a much bigger charge on the Cattle Fund than they anticipate. He also pointed out that the object of the Measure is to help the cattle industry. That does not mean only the employers, it means the work people as well.

Major Hills: indicated assent.

Mr. Stephen: The right hon. and gallant Member agrees. He also said that as a result of the Measure there may be a large displacement of labour and that the Amendment would put a heavy b1rden on the Cattle Fund. It is also said that the Bill is to help the cattle industry. Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. They must accept the view that employés are part of the cattle industry as well as the employers. I would say to hon. Members who are afraid of the possible charge on the Cattle Fund by way of compensation that they should not be so frightened about it. The Government are agreeing to make this contribution, and if a charge is placed on the Cattle Fund, which was not anticipated, it will be the job of the Government to meet it. I do not see why they should be in such a dreadful state of trepidation about the Cattle Fund. I would suggest to hon. Members that they are taking the worst possible way of trying to persuade the Government to do something for the livestock industry, if they allow the employed to be treated in this way, to lose their job without compensation. Possibly a man of 55 would be thrown on to the scrap heap. He would be a living monument of the Government's plan for putting the cattle industry on a better basis. I hope the Committee will realise that what the Minister said with regard to freedom of

contract was completely irrelevant, because compensation to the employés does not in any way interfere with freedom of contract. We say that if the Bill becomes law then everyone who is thrown out of work should be entitled to adequate compensation.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: I intervene in this Debate because my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, the Leader of he Opposition and the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) have raised a question of principle, and have endeavoured to make it an issue between the two sides of the Committee. I do not think a question of principle arises in this matter. All the speeches from this side of the Committee and from the other side have been quite sympathetic. The question of principle might justifiably be raised by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) if this country were, in fact, a Communist State where everybody was an industrial conscript more or less—

Mr. Gallacher: Never.

Mr. Boothby: —under the orders of the State, and had to do what the State told him or be liquidated; but nobody expects the Minister of Agriculture to iquidate these unfortunate people. Moreover, we have not in this country at the present moment a system of completely free contracts for service. The Minister of Agriculture spoke as if everybody had an untrammelled right to offer labour or to accept labour under any conditions, but hon. Members know that that is not entirely true. Consequently, the question of compensation is not one of principle, but one of expediency and of what is right and just. On that question it seems to me that nobody except the Minister could decide the issue, and he would have to give cogent reasons for the decisions which he reached. Hon. Members opposite ought to be very careful before laying down any hard-and-fast rules regarding compensation, because one day they may have to consider compensation. There is no doubt in my mind that during the next 20, 30 or 40 years there will be passed many Acts of Parliament which involve some measure of State interference with the conduct of industry, and with regard to each one of those measures—most of which, I hope, will be brought forward with the object,


which this Bill has, of improving the efficiency of and rationalising industry—cases of disorganisation and temporary hardship will occur.
It is impossible for us in this Committee to lay down a hard-and-fast rule that everybody who is temporarily inconvenienced by any Act of this character shall be fully compensated. It is purely a matter of expediency. As to these particular people, I think that probably they will find re-employment quite quickly in a much more efficient industry. I believe this Bill will make the opportunities. With regard to the practical side, if the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture is convinced that there is a case of real hardship for these people, he ought to come to the Committee and say, "Here is a case of special Hardship which the Treasury should compensate." But, as representing one of the big beef-producing constituencies in this country, I should be very reluctant to see the whole Cattle Fund whittled away in paying compensation to every sort of person who might consider himself to be unfairly treated by this Measure. In this matter, in which no question of principle arises, we have to be very careful that no hard-and-fast rule is laid down.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I wish to make a few remarks arising out of the strange and peculiar digression of the Minister of Agriculture, who served up the most hopeless muddle of economics and sociology that I have ever heard. As far as the workers are concerned, he told us about free contracts. I wonder why some of the hon. Members opposite do not avail themselves of those free contracts. They do not seem to be anxious to make free contracts to work down a pit or in a shipyard. No, hon. Members opposite do not have to do that; but the workers have to do it. There is no question of free contracts for them, because they are forced to work in order to live. Some of them get jobs in industries which are affected by Government Measures. An hon. Member has referred to the case of a man who will lose his job after 30 years' service. The man will lose his job, on which his livelihood depends, and the person for whom he is working will lose his business, on which his livelihood depends. Is the livelihood of one

of these men more important than that of the other? One man's livelihood is taken away and he does not get any compensation. The other man is a business man, he has money invested, and he gets compensation. It is not a question of livelihood or of humanity, but of money invested. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour forgets that the business man has as much right to invest his money in a business as the worker has to put his labour into it.
If the Government were not bringing about this re-organisation of the cattle industry, there would be chaos, and the result would be that these business men would have to go out of the industry because there would be no cattle market in the country. It is sure that if the cattle industry were left to go on as it has been going on, any number of these business men would be forced out of the industry through bankruptcy. They have the right to invest money, the right to lose money, the right to continue making profits and so on; but before giving them the opportunity of going bankrupt, the process of re-organisation is to be taken up by the Government. Now we have the question of one man going out of business and the other man going out of his job. It is a question of the livelihoods of two men, and I maintain that the Minister, of Agriculture would not dare, in this House or in any part of the country, to claim that the livelihood of one man was more important than that of the other.
The right hon. Gentleman did not even suggest that there is anything in this proposal that is of a serious character as far as the Bill is concerned. He did not make a single argument against the proposal, because he was afraid it might be used in connection with various other industries, and so on. He was unable to put forward a single argument, either with reference to the Cattle Fund or anything else, as to why this proposal should not be adopted. Therefore, he spoke about the future and about what I and other hon. Members have in view. What have I in view? I believe that every man, woman and child in this country has a right to a livelihood—a view which I believe no one will dispute. They can obtain a livelihood only by working, unless they are like hon. Members opposite, who live on the sweat and strain of other people. If a man's job, and


therefore his livelihood, is to be taken away from him because of reorganisation, then he must be given some compensation. The man who is in business and who has invested money is to be given compensation, so that he will be in a position to go into another business and continue getting his livelihood. The right hon. Gentleman ought to agree to do for the man who loses his job the same as is being done for the business man.
If a man's job is to be taken away, he must be provided with another job, or maintained until he can get another job. Can there be any objection to that in politics? The Minister of Agriculture knows better than his speech indicated, for he used to be associated with a number of advanced political thinkers up in Scotland. He never paraded as being advanced, but he came into contact with advanced political thinkers. It is the Treasury that is the trouble. The right hon. Gentleman has never been able to combat the Treasury, even when he was working there, and it is the Treasury which is dominating the situation at the present time. I want the right hon. Gentleman to make a fight against the Treasury and to say that the livelihood of all these people is to be protected.
The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) is a very astute person, and he gave us a nice argument which I commend to the Minister of Agriculture. He said that these people who are losing their jobs and their livelihood will soon get jobs in a highly developed and more efficient industry which will result from the working of this Bill. But is not the case the same with regard to the local officials, the auctioneers and so on who are to get compensation? Why is it that the possibility cannot be foreseen of these other people getting jobs in a more highly specialised industry? If these people are not to be given compensation because they will have the chance of getting jobs in a more efficient industry, why should compensation be given to the others who will have the same opportunity? The Minister of Agriculture did not make one argument against this proposal; he did not make one argument as to the livelihood of these individuals which would justify any impartial person in saying that one man whose livelihood is taken away should be compensated and that the other whose livelihood is taken away should not be compensated.
What is to happen to a man who has been in the same job for a number of years, perhaps in a village or small town, if he is deprived of that employment without compensation? The Minister has not faced points of that kind. His argument has been based upon the possible effect of this Measure on the industry in relation to the employment of workers. I am prepared to see the country committed irrevocably to the principle of guarding the livelihood of every man, woman and child in it. If the Minister is not prepared to agree to that principle, I am sure he will keep the fact hidden even from himself when he visits his constituency. I am certain that in his own constituency the right hon. Gentleman would put a very different complexion upon this matter from that which he has put upon it to-day. I ask him to consider the livelihood of the people who are to be thrown out of jobs, as well as the livelihood of those who are to be thrown out of businesses.

6.32 p.m.

Sir F. Acland: Having listened to all this debate there is one thing with which I am certain I do not agree, arid that is the argument that whereas it might be fair to pay compensation out of some other fund, it would be unfair and unreasonable to pay it out of the Cattle Fund. Representing a constituency of cattle producers I am as much interested in the Cattle Fund as anybody else, but if it is right to pay compensation it ought to be paid, whatever fund is utilised for the purpose. If it will put too great a strain on this fund, then it ought to come out of some other fund, once the principle has been accepted that it is right to give it. As to that, I feel a certain measure of agreement with some of the speeches which have been made on both side of the question. When one considers various instances of the manner in which compensation is now applied one finds that there is no uniformity of principle in the matter. If a by-pass road is made a man who has a garage on the road which is passed by and is cut out of the main stream of traffic loses heavily and in some cases his business disappears, but you do not compensate in that case. You compensate neither the landowner nor the garage owner nor the people employed in the garage. Then, suppose the case of a local authority which provides water or


collects refuse under a certain system. It then makes arrangements with a larger local authority to provide the water or collect the refuse on its behalf but it does not compensate the men whom it has been employing in pumping the water or collecting the refuse.
The Forestry Commission, with which I am connected, buys farms on which a few people may be employed in tending sheep. The Commission do so in order to put more people at work, looking after the woods. The tenant of the farm gets compensation under the Agricultural Holdings Act but the shepherd gets no compensation when the farm is absorbed into the forest and he is deprived of his employment. Under slum clearance schemes we sweep away bad properties and we compensate the owners of the properties to some extent but not the men who have been employed by the owners in collecting the rents. Take the case of the nationalisation of mining royalties. Are hon. Members above the Gangway in favour of compensating out of some special fund formed by the State people who earn their livelihood now, in computing and collecting those royalties? If the same hon. Members propose the nationalisation of munitions, will they also propose special compensation for the

people formerly employed by those munition firms in their contract departments and in other work which will no longer be necessary after nationalisation? If they are prepared to compensate those workers are they also prepared to compensate the shareholders in the firms?

It will be seen that this principle goes extraordinarily far and that there is a lack of uniformity in the way in which it has been applied. One has to keep those considerations in mind when deciding how to vote on this issue. I think, on the whole, one cannot say, "We will compensate the big men but not the small men." The Government some day will have to try to deal with this matter on some basis of principle. Until they do so I would prefer to vote in favour of giving compensation to the small men who are put out of their jobs just as you do to the big men. The few instances I have given however show how far-reaching the question is and may incline the Government to take a broader view and to try to work out some basis of principle such as I suggest.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 98; Noes, 223.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 3.—(Livestock Advisory Committee.)

7.14 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 3, line 16, to leave out "at least three," and to insert "four."
This refers to the independent members of the Livestock Advisory Committee and the Amendment has two purposes. In the first place, it is partly consequential on the acceptance by the House of the Sub-clause on Wales and a new sub-committee of the Livestock Advisory Committee. If hon. Members will look at the Second Schedule they will see that it is necessary to make provision for the chairman of the committee itself and of each of the sub-committees—now three in number —so that the independent members are fixed at four. The second purpose served is to try to meet criticisms made in Committee which I promised to consider. Apprehensions were expressed in all parts of the Committee as to the power to appoint independent members to the Livestock Advisory Committee. It was felt and feared that if the Minister had this power he would be able to exercise it in such a wholesale fashion as to swamp by his own nominees the more representative members of the Livestock industry. I did not like to accept the suggestions on the super of the moment, because I wanted a little time to consider whether four independent members was a sufficient number to allow chairmen to provide deputies for each other in case of illness or absence. On mature reflection I have come to the conclusion that four is quite enough. After all, the Advisory Committee and the sub-committees are very unlikely to be sitting at the same time, and I believe that four independent members, by making mutual arrangements under which they will deputise for one another when necessary, can perform the function of providing independent chairmen for the committee and the sub-committees, which is their function.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: While we have no objection to the right hon. Gentleman limiting the number of additional members of the committee, I hope that by some future Amendment the measure of representation now given to the industry will to some extent be mitigated by the inclusion of representatives of the largest body of people in the country. We think that four independent members will serve the purpose better than three, but I am not sure that it is wise for the Minister to limit his appointments to four. However, as long as we may expect sympathy later, we will offer no objection to this Amendment.

7.17 p.m.

Sir R. W. Smith: Suppose no one of the appointed members was there to act as chairman of the committee. In that case would it be impossible for the committee to sit, or could they appoint one of their number to act as chairman at that meeting?

7.18 p.m.

Sir E. Shepperson: I should like to express the appreciation which many of us have of the action of the Minister in meeting our point. We were afraid that the independent members might become a majority on the Livestock Advisory Committee, but we are satisfied that as there are to be only four of them that cannot possibly happen.

7.19 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: By the leave of the House, I will reply to the question which has been addressed to me by the hon. Member for Central Aberdeen (Sir R. W. Smith). He asked what would happen if all four independent members were absent, which, I think he agrees, is an unlikely contingency. If he will consult paragraph 4 of the Second Schedule he will see that though independent members have to be appointed as chairman of the committee and as chairmen of the sub-committees the general procedure—as to the quorum and so on—of each sub-committee can be decided by the committee themselves, subject to directions from the Minister, and I think that will give me the opportunity to make the necessary provision for the unlikely contingency which he has in mind. I am


obliged to the lion. Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) for what he has said.

Amendment agreed to.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 3, line 20, at the end, to insert "(a) consumers."
A feature of the proceedings on this Bill has been the readiness with which the Minister has listened to all the representations from his political friends, and I hope that he will give some sympathy to this Amendment which we are submitting on behalf of the consumers. The taxpayers will have to find £2,000,000 of this subsidy and the consumers of imported meat will have to find £3,000,000. On the Livestock Advisory Committee there is to be direct representation for the producers of livestock, for local authorities and for auctioneers. Hon. Members will see that in Clause 11 of the original Bill some reference was.; made to consumers, but that appeared to arouse the opposition of the Minister, because in Committee he proceeded to delete that reference to consumers and it is no longer in the Bill. The great majority of the people of this country are not so much interested in the reorganisation of the livestock industry from the standpoint of auctioneers or producers of stock, although there is a general desire that those who have the responsibility of producing British cattle shall be able to do so under reasonably economic conditions, and it is undesirable that we should be passing legislation to provide for those very limited special interests without providing an opportunity for great consumers' organisations to be represented in order to see that no injury is done to the people who consume the products of the industry. The Livestock Advisory Committee is not an executive body, the Commissioners being the executive body and the Advisory Committee is set up to give the Commissioners advice in the general direction and reorganisation of the industry. It appears to me that the Commissioners will not get the type of balanced advice which they should have unless consumers are represented on the committee.

Mr. Leonard: I beg to second the Amendment.

7.23 p.m.

Mr. H. Haslam: I hope that the Minister will not accept this Amendment. I do not see that consumers require any particular representation on the Livestock Advisory Committee. They are amply protected by the very large supplies of meat from all over the world which come into this country at competitive prices, and I do not suppose that any really impartial person would deny that, generally speaking, the consumer in this country gets his beef, his mutton, and his food generally at a lower price, perhaps, than the consumer in any other country. That being so there does not seem to be any particular need to have some representative on this Committee to look after his interests. The very fabric of our system amply protects his interests. The hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) contrasted the position of the consumers with that of the auctioneers and others more directly concerned with the industry, but the comparison is not really a just one. Through the closing, possibly, of certain markets auctioneers may find themselves in the position of losing their business, and consequently they ought to have some representation. Further, it is not possible to effect any reorganisation of or improvement in the livestock industry without the co-operation or advice of auctioneers, who play such a large part in that industry. This Bill, by aiding the production of British beef, will materially help the consumer in this country. The support which the Government have given to the livestock industry in recent years has undoubtedly assisted consumers. It has made the supply of meat larger than it otherwise would have been, arid it has kept the home sources of supply in being. The encouragement of this home industry is of the utmost importance as a war emergency measure. This Bill, by encouraging the home industry, will prove to have been of considerable benefit in any time of emergency. I trust the Minister will not accept the Amendment.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Acland: I should like, in one or two sentences, to express my surprise at the speech of the hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Haslam). It is remarkable that he should say that the consumer is protected by the fact that we have a free market, whereas really we have nothing of the kind. The market has been regulated


quantitatively over a series of years—I cannot off hand remember how many— and in addition the consumer has to ¾d. pay per 1b. duty on imported foreign meat.

Mr. Haslam: indicated dissent.

Mr. Acland: Certainly the consumer pays it. At least, the British Iron and Steel Federation, when they wanted the duty on pig-iron reduced, said that the users of pig-iron in this country were paying the duty, and I submit that it is the same in the case of imported meat. Moreover, consumers must be vitally concerned in all matters affecting the quality of meat. Not only are they benefited directly if the quality is improved, but if the quality improves and more British meat is purchased and higher prices are obtained for it. consumers may not have to continue paying this duty of ¾d. per 1b. for so long. They are also concerned with the efficiency of the marketing arrangements. I contend that the Amendment ought to be accepted so as to give consumers direct representation on this important committee and its sub-committees, which are to advise the Minister on all matters relating to the Bill.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I should like to know how the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland) would like to see this Amendment carried out. The Mover talked about great consumers' organisations. I have yet to find consumers bonded together in great organisations. I rather think that he is falling into the same grave error that he made in the Committee stage, when he patted himself proudly on the back and said: "I am a great consumers' organisation," although his profits came from distribution and not from consumption. The Livestock Advisory Committee has to give expert advice, but who is the right type of expert to advise about consumption? My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall), and I suppose the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell), might be regarded as qualified to put themselves forward as the right type of consumer.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I hope my hon. Friend is not leaving out Yorkshire.

Mr. Turton: I quite agree with my hon. and gallant Friend, who also represents

a Lincolnshire Division. The fact that they eat Yorkshire beef is proved by the fact that they have grown to large proportions in this House. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) is one of those lean men, like Cassius. Evidently he does not use Yorkshire beef to the same extent as do the men of Lincolnshire. If you want expert advice about the consumption of meat you should put forward the local authority, the one body which represents the ratepayers. We already have representatives of the local authorities of Great Britain, and one of their functions will be to put forward the views of the ratepayers, who are the people who eat meat. The local authorities are therefore the organisations which represent the consumers. It would be a great mistake to put into the Bill words which mean nothing, and to put in a phrase such as "representing an organisation of consumers" when no such a body exists and when consumers are already adequately represented. The advice that consumers can give in an expert capacity is very limited.

7.34 p.m.

Captain Heilgers: My hon. Friend has pointed out that the Co-operative movement is already represented on the Livestock Advisory Committee. The cooperative people are producers; I believe they lose a great deal of money every year in farming. Surely, therefore, as the committee is at present constituted, they will have some voice in the decisions of the committee. The co-operative movement may be concerned with production and slaughtering, and so forth, but it is a general business, and, as my hon. Friend has just pointed out, the committee will be a technical committee and purely advisory. Above all, the aim of the committee, in the Minister's eyes at any rate, is that it should not be sectional. The hon. Member for East Ham South (Mr. Barnes) must therefore console himself with the thought that everybody on the committee, as constituted, is a consumer.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Messer: I cannot understand why there should be such difficulty in appointing a representative of what is definitely an organisation of consumers.

Captain Heilgers: What is it?

Mr. Messer: The opposition to the Amendment seems to be misleading in its argument. It is said that we already have representatives of the local authorities, but they will be there not as representatives of the community as consumers, but from the standpoint of the health services, more than anything else. It has been said that the Cooperative Movement is a great business undertaking and that its profits are made out of distribution, but distribution among whom? There are 7,000,000 members of the Co-operative Movement, and those members own the business. It is the only organisation of consumers, and it cannot be said that it represents a limited number. These 7,000,000 members of the public are bound together in an organisation. The argument which was addressed to the House just now was that you do not find an organisation which binds the people as consumers, but that statement is quite wrong. I suggest that the function of a representative of the consumers on this committee would be to see that the advice given and the decisions arrived at are not solely for the purpose of seeing that production is improved, if that would be done at the cost of the consumers. There is, therefore, a very weighty reason why a representative of the purchasing public should be on this committee.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. Price: It is essential that some much more definite reference to the consuming public should be inserted in the Bill, and this is a very good place to do so. Exception seems to be taken to direct representation of the Co-operative Movement in this country which, it is suggested, is more concerned with trade and distribution and profits than with the consumer. That cannot be said about big local co-operative societies like the London Co-operative Society, which is engaged in large distribution over the Metropolis. Any processing they undertake is directly connected with distribution to its consuming public. Whatever may be said about the central Co-operative Wholesale Society and its business operations, with which I will not deal—there may be reasons for proposing not to have representation for them upon this body; I do not know, and I will not express an opinion—as regards the local societies there is no reason whatever why they

should not be regarded as directly representative of the consumers.
Other bodies could very well have the right to appoint someone, or from which a representative could be selected by the Minister, to serve on this committee. The Food Council are in existence for the purpose of watching prices and serving the interests of the consumer. Why could they not represent the consumer? Any person appointed ad hoc for this purpose surely could be found. While I will not say it is essential to have this inserted in the Bill, a good opportunity is presented by this Clause, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some satisfactory explanation why it should not go in, and some promise to insert it somewhere else if he cannot do so here.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Kingsley Griffith: I am glad that the last speaker has made what, I think, is a necessary correction in the Debate. It seems to be too widely assumed on both sides of the House that the representatives of the consumers appointed would necessarily be co-operative representatives. It may very well be that that body would be the most convenient and representative, but the Amendment does not say so. As far as the Amendment is concerned, it would be quite in order to appoint a member of the Carlton Club; emphatically this is an association of consumers, because the members go there to eat. It has been said that there is no necessity for representation of consumers on this body, but the one thing that makes me think that such representation is necessary is the enormous anxiety that some hon. Members have shown in this Debate to keep them out. That leads me to suppose at once that such representatives might be able to perform a useful function. As I see Measure after Measure produced—which may have their merits.—for the assistance of producers, I feel that in all matters, as representatives of the various constituencies, we should see that the consumers' point of view is never left out. The consumer is as much interested in the success of a scheme like this as are the producers. It is idle to say that everybody is a consumer, and that the producers' representatives are good enough in themselves to represent the consumers' case as well, but that is not so. If a man goes there with a definite brief and a definite point of view, he puts


forward that point of view, and the consumers' side is temporarily suppressed until the meeting is over and it comes to lunch time. The consumer should be represented on as many of these bodies as possible. Such representatives should represent consumers directly, and attend for that purpose.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I always feel sympathetic with the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) when he produces something with which I can sympathise. On this occasion, I am afraid that there are fundamental difficulties about his Amendment. There is, first, the immense difficulty of finding a body which can represent consumers to the satisfaction of all consumers. I gather from what the hon. Member said that he had in mind the large organisation with which he is connected. Everybody has a great respect for that organisation, but it would be most inadvisable to embody an organisation of that kind in the Bill if it were hoped to obtain the general consent of the consumers of the country. It is true that the main function of local authorities will be to give advice on health matters, but if it were ascertained that consumers' interests were neglected I am not at all sure that the local authorities would not represent the point of view of the consumers. Everyone is a consumer; my right hon. Friend is a consumer and so am I. That is a definite, and, I think, unavoidable difficulty in this Amendment, and I see no way of overcoming it.
After all, there are ample safeguards in the Bill. The orders have to go through the Minister and to come before Parliament, and if hon. Members imagine that they contain anything detrimental to the consumers, there will be an opportunity of stating so. The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith), as well as the hon. Member for East Ham, make me think that they do not quite appreciate the purpose of the committee. The hon. Member spoke about a member of the committee coming with a definite brief, but it will not be that member's function to come with a brief for this or that interest. The purpose of the committee is to give technical advice to the Commission, and the members are there not to represent this or that section. We do not want this committee to be a com-

mittee of sections, each warring with the others, and endeavouring to represent interests which may or may not be inconsistent. We do not want them to establish a system of Whips, parties, divisions, and so forth. They are there to be technical advisers. Far these three reasons, therefore—first, that I cannot think of a body which could be nominated to represent the consumers; secondly, that the members of the committee are in themselves, by implication, concerned with the interests of the consumers; and, thirdly, that they are there to give technical advice to the Livestock Commission and not to represent the interests of this or that section—I trust that the House will agree that it would be most unwise to accept the Amendment.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I am rather afraid that the Minister of Pensions has not been so successful as he usually is. At least, he has not persuaded me that this Amendment ought not to be accepted. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), who is always, or almost always, wrong, was equally wrong on this occasion, when he referred to my leanness as due to my lack of consumption of Yorkshire beef. May I suggest to him that my leanness is perhaps more due to good breeding than to that reason? With regard to this Amendment, the Livestock Advisory Committee is a very important body. It will tender advice to the commission on marketing schemes, slaughtering schemes, restriction of imports of foreign beef and veal, and all kinds of things that are of fundamental importance, and because it is so important a committee, we also think that it ought not to be heavily loaded in favour of vested interests. We hope that whoever the Minister may appoint as members of this committee will carry their skill, experience and technique into the counsels of the Committee, but we are convinced that they would he unnatural business men if they did not carry the interests of their particular industry into that committee. It always has been done and will be done in future, and it will be done here, because the Minister himself has invited it.
The hon. Gentleman the Minister of Pensions said that we ought not to have a committee consisting of individuals haggling over this, putting forward dif-


ferent points of view, and squabbling, but that is exactly what the Minister has catered for. In Clause 3, Sub-section (2) he says that we are to have four additional members of the Livestock Advisory Committee, representation for producers of livestock, for local authorities, for auctioneers, for butchers, and for those interested in the marketing or preparation for sale of livestock or products of the slaughtering of livestock. What has he got there except a body of individuals who will definitely put their own point of view? Contrariwise, we are at least entitled to say that the consumers as such are entitled to a point of view in the counsels of that committee. It may be extremely difficult, as the Minister of Pensions declares, to select one person or two persons out of 46,000,000, but whether they are members of the co-operative society or not makes no matter. If they have the consumers' interest at heart, then at least they will carry the experience and technique of consumption, prices, and other relevant considerations within that committee should they become members of it.
Let me put this final and clinching argument in favour of the Amendment. Under Clause 3 the Minister provides himself with the power to appoint four additional members. Then he definitely allocates positions for three different interests. Assuming that he only gave those separate interests one member each, that would be four additional members and three representing various interests, or seven in all. But as he has already provided for the setting up of three subcommittees, one each for England, Scotland, and Wales, and he has further already provided that at least two-thirds of each sub-committee shall be members of the Livestock Advisory Committee, how can he have those sub-committees with two-thirds of the number out of a maximum of seven? This clearly indicates that what must happen is that there will be four additional members and that there must of necessity, in view of the sub-committees, be two members representing the three different interests, making to in all. Therefore, this Livestock Advisory Committee, which is so important and which can be so useful one

way or the other, will be heavily loaded in favour of vested interests, a thing that we ought not to cater for with our eyes wide open.
When we invite the Minister to insert a representative of the consumers so that consumers shall definitely have a point of view within the counsels of this committee, we are not asking that some particular individual who has no national conscience, who has no business capacity, or who is blinded with partiality should be made a member of the committee, We are asking that a point of view apart from that of the producer of livestock, the auctioneer, or the butcher shall have a place on the committee. The Minister of Pensions must remember that the consumer as such and the taxpayer between them in any case are to provide the cattle producer with £5,000,000 per annum, so that we have already made things fairly comfortable for the cattle producer. We have put that in his hands almost to commence with, and all that we are asking now is that where it becomes a question of a marketing scheme, or a slaughtering scheme, or of saying whether there shall be further restrictions imposed upon imported beef or veal, the consumer shall have a voice.
I do not think the Minister has made out a case against the Amendment. So long as the Government, definitely or with malice aforethought, have made arrangements to give all other interests representation, weighted representation on the Livestock Advisory Committee, I think we are entitled to press for representation for the consumers. Let the Minister or the Ministers, for there are three of them, all Scotsmen, choose Scotsmen, Irishmen, Welshmen, or Englishmen—we do not mind—but let them choose men or women to represent the consumers who have the capacity, who have the desire, and who are willing to render that national service. I think the Minister of Pensions ought to reconsider this question.

Question put, "That (a) consumers ' be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 98; Noes, 192.

Division No 179.]
AYES.
[6.36 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Harris, Sir P. A.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Ridley, G.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Riley, B.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Adamson, W. M.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Jigger, J.
Rowson, G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sanders, W. S.


Barnes, A. J.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Barr, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sexton, T. M.


Batey, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Short, A.


Bellenger, F. J.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Bromfield, W.
Kirby, B. V.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Lathan, G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Burke, W. A.
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cape, T.
Leonard, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Leslie, J. R.
Stephen, C.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Logan, D. G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cocks, F. S.
Lunn, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Dalton, H.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Thorne, W.


Ede, J. C.
McEntee, V. La T.
Thurtle, E.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
McGhee, H. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
MacLaren, A.
Viant, S. P.


Gallacher, W.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Walkden, A. G.


Gardner, B. W.
Marshall, F.
Walker, J.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watkins, F. C.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Muff, G.
Watson, W. McL.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Nathan, Major H. L.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Owen, Major G.
Westwood, J.


Grenfell, D. R.
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Parkinson, J. A.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Pethlok-Lawrente, F. W.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Groves, T. E.
Potts, J.



Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Price, M. P.



Hardie, G. D.
Pritt, D. N.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Entwistte, Sir C. F.
Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Errington, E.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Petherick, M.


Albery, Sir Irving
Findlay, Sir E.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Pilkington, R.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Apsley, Lord
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Aske, Sir R. W.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Procter, Major H. A.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Gower, Sir R. V.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Atholl, Duchess of
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Ramsbotham, H.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Balniel, Lord
Grimston, R. V.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Remer, J. R.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Guy, J. C. M.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Hannah, I. C.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Bernays, R. H.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Blinded, Sir J.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Bossom, A. C.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Boulton, W. W.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buohan-
Salmon, Sir I.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Salt, E. W.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Higgs, W. F.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Bracken, B.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Brass, Sir W.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Holmes, J. S.
Sandys, E. D.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Savery, Sir Servington


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Hopkinson, A.
Selley, H. R.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Brown, Brig.-Gen, H. C. (Newbury)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Bull, B. B.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Shepperson, Sir F. W.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Simmonds, O. E.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hunter, T.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Cary, R. A.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Joel, D. J. B.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Spens, W. P.


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Storey, S.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Latham, Sir P.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Lewis, O.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Lindsay, K. M
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Lloyd, G. W.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Tate, Mavis C.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
McKie, J. H.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Maenamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Crooke, J. S.
Magnay, T.
Touche, G. C.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Maitland, A.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Turton, R. H.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wakefield, W. W.


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Markham, S. F.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Davison, Sir W. H.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Warrender, Sir V.


Dawson, Sir P.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


De Chair, S. S.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.
Wells, S. R.


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Morgan, R. H.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Drewa, C.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Wragg, H.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Dunglass, Lord
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh



Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Palmer, G. E. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Ellis, Sir G.
Patrick, C. M.
Commander Southby and Sir Henry


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Peake, O.
Morris-Jones.


Elmley, Viscount
Penny, Sir G.



Question put, and agreed to.

Division No. 180.]
AYES.
[7.55 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Hardie, G. D.
Pritt, D. N.


Acland, R. T.-D. (Barnstaple)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Ridley, G.


Adamson, W. M.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Riley, B.


Ammon, C. G.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Rowson, G.


Barnes, A. J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sanders, W. S.


Barr, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Bellenger, F. J.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Sexton, T. M.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Kirby, B. V.
Short, A.


Bevan, A.
Lathan, G.
Silkin, L.


Bromfield, W.
Lawson, J. J.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Leonard, W.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Burke, W. A.
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cape, T.
Logan, D. G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Charleton, H. C.
Linn, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Chater, D.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cluse, W. S.
McEntee, V. La T.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Clynee, Rt. Hon. J. R.
MoGhee, H. G.
Thorne, W.


Cocks, F. S.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Thurtle, E.


Dalton, H.
Marshall, F.
Tinker, J. J.


Ede, J. C.
Maxton, J.
Viant, S. P.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Messer, F.
Walkden, A. G.


Gardner, B. W.
Milner, Major J.
Watkins, F. C.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Watson, W. McL.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Westwood, J.


Gibbins, J.
Muff, G.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Owen, Major G.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Paling, W.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Grenfell, D. R.
Parkinson, J. A.



Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Potts, J.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Price, M. P.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Crowder, J. F. E.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Cruddas, Col. B.
Hopkinson, A.


Agnew, Lieut.-Domdr. P. G.
Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.


Albery, Sir Irving
Dawson, Sir P.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)


Atholl, Duchess of
Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Hunter, T.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Joel, D. J. B,


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Duggan, H. J.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Ellis, Sir G.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.


Balniel, Lord
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Elmley, Viscount
Leckie, J. A.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H,
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Lewis, O.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Everard, W. L.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Blindell, Sir J.
Findlay, Sir E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Bossom, A. C.
Fleming, E. L.
McKie, J. H.


Boulton, W. W.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Magnay, T.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Furness, S. N.
Maitland, A.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Brass, Sir W.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Gower, Sir R. V.
Markham, S. F.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Bull, B. B.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)


Burghley, Lord
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Milts, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Burton, Col. H. W.
Grimston, R. V.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.


Butler, R. A.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Morgan, R. H.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll. N. W.)
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Cary, R. A.
Guinness, T. L. E, B.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Guy, J. C. M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Hannah, I. C.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Channon, H.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Penny, Sir G.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan
Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Petherick, M.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Higgs, W. F.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Crooke, J. S.
Holmes, J. S.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton







Procter, Major H. A.
Selley, H. R.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Ramsbotham, H.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Touche, G. C.


Rathbone, J. R, (Bodmin)
Shepperton, Sir E. W.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Simmonds, O. E.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Rayner, Major R. H.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Turton, R. H.


Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Wakefield, W. W.


Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Renter, J. R.
Spens, W. P.
Warrender, Sir V.


Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Stanley, Rt. Hon, Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Ropner, Colonel L.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wells, S. R.


Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Rothschild, J. A. de
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Rowlands, G.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Young, A. S. L. (Partiok)


Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Sutcliffe, H.



Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Tasker, Sir R. I.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Salt, E. W.
Tate, Mavis C,
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lombert Ward




and Major Sir George Davies.

CLAUSE 54.—(Application to Scotland.)

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Wedderburn: I beg to move, in page 43, line 10, at the end, to insert:


(6) Sub-section (2) of Section twenty-one, and Sub-section (2) of Section twenty-seven of this Act shall have effect as if the words 'other than a county council' were omitted, but nothing in either of the said Sub-sections shall be construed as authorising a local authority to institute proceedings for any offence against this Act.
When we were discussing the Amendments to Clause 21 and Clause 27 my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Captain Heilgers) asked why we were conferring these functions on county councils in Scotland but not in England. The reason is that in Scotland we have no rural district councils, and the functions which are performed by those councils in England are carried out by county councils in Scotland. The Committee will see that in this Amendment we do not authorise local authorities to institute proceedings for offences under this Bill. The reason is that in Scotland prosecutions are normally instituted by the Procurator-Fiscal, our theory of criminal law being that a crime is an offence against society.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Incidental provisions as to Livestock Advisory Committee.)

6.47 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I beg to move, in page 47, line 20, to leave out "one," and to insert "two."

This Amendment and the following Amendments are consequential upon the Amendment adding a Welsh sub-committee to the other sub-committees.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 47, line 21, leave out "chairman," and insert "respectively chairmen."

In line 21, leave out "sub-committee for England," and insert "English subcommittee and of the Welsh sub-committee."

In line 23, leave out "sub-committee for Scotland," and insert "Scottish sub-committee."

In line 26, leave out "two."—[Mr. Ramsbotham.]

Question proposed, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the Second Schedule to the Bill."

6.50 p.m.

Sir R. W. Smith: I raised a point earlier with regard to the appointed members of the sub-committees of England, Scotland and Wales, and I pointed out that there was no provision made as to their terms of contract. Under this Schedule the members of the Livestock Advisory Committee will hold office in accordance with the terms of the instrument under which they are appointed. It seems to me that we should also know the terms under which the members of the sub-committees are to hold office. When I raised the point the Minister told me that there were consequential Amendments which dealt with the matter, and he referred me to the Amendments which have just been passed by the Committee. None of them, however, deals with my point, and I should like to have an assurance that some provision will be made for the appointment of members of subcommittees.

Mr. Ramsbotham: There is some substance in what my hon. Friend says. If a member of a sub-committee is not a member of the main committee, it is not certain that the words will apply to him, and I will give an assurance that it will be looked into and put right in another place.

Orders of the Day — SIXTH SCHEDULE.

Amendments made:

In page 52, line 5, at the end, insert:
1. Any action to he taken with respect to the English sub-committee or the Welsh sub-committee of the Livestock Advisory Committee.

In line 21, at the end, insert:
1. Any action to be taken with respect to the Scottish sub-committee of the Livestock Advisory Committee."—[Mr. Ramsbotham.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones (Lord of the Treasury): May I draw attention to a slight inaccuracy in the last Division. I reported the figures in the "Aye" Lobby as 98. There was an inaccuracy on my part, and I should like, with the permission of the Committee, to correct it to 99.

The Deputy - Chairman (Captain Bourne): I understand that the hon. Member for South Leeds (Mr. Charleton) agrees with that correction.

Mr. Charleton: I do, Sir.

The Deputy-Chairman: In that case I will direct that the records be corrected accordingly.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Special purposes for which service schemes may be made in connection with livestock markets orders and by-laws.)

(1) A service scheme may make provision for one or more of the following purposes, that is to say:

(a) for co-operation with the Commission in the preparation and promotion of livestock markets orders and livestock markets by-laws;
(b) for securing that (subject to such provisions with respect to appeals to the Commission on the part of persons aggrieved as may be contained in the scheme) a person shall not, except: under the authority of a licence in that behalf granted by the body administering the scheme, carry on the business of effecting sales by auction of livestock, or any particular description of livestock, on premises to which livestock markets by-laws apply;
(c) for the compensation of persons for loss or damage which they may suffer by reason of the operation—

(1) of any provisions of the scheme having effect by virtue of paragraph (b) of this Sub-section, or
(ii) of any livestock markets order or livestock markets by-laws,
for the indemnification of persons in respect of their liability to contribute under such an order, or for the making of contributions to the Commission to be used in defraying expenses incurred by the Commission on account of compensation payable under such an order;

and the last preceding Section shall have effect as if the purposes mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of this Sub-section were included among the purposes mentioned in Subsection (1) of that Section.

(2) A service scheme containing any provisions for the purpose mentioned in paragraph (b) of the preceding Sub-section may provide for the imposition of such penalties as may be prescribed by the scheme on persons contravening any of those provisions.—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.

Brought up, and read the First time.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time.
This proposed new Clause deals with the same subject matter as Clause 31, namely, the power to frame service schemes. In Clause 31 there is a list of purposes for which schemes can be brought into existence, and one of them is to enable auctioneers in particular to provide a national compensation fund out of which they can compensate their members who are adversely affected by the Bill. It has always been felt that this compensation provision was rather a foreigner among the list of other objects to be served by service schemes. It is proposed later, therefore, to withdraw subparagraph (vi) of Clause 31, for the provisions of that sub-paragraph are embodied in the new Clause. The new Clause also provides further powers to increase the opportunities of collaboration between the auctioneers and the Commission. It is essential and valuable that the Commission should have from the start the expert knowledge and collaboration of those who have spent a lifetime in the management of auction marts. The Commission is an independent body, and the more it can avail itself of the experience and expert knowledge of those gentlemen the better. The new Clause, in paragraph (a), provides that the scheme may make provision for enabling the authorised body to work in co-operation with the Commission in the preparation of live-stock markets' orders and live-stock markets by-laws, and it will enable the authorised body to collaborate in securing that this promotion and preparation are attended with good advice. Paragraph (c) restores the power of compensating which was previously expressed in sub-paragraph (vi) of Clause 31.
Paragraph (b) is an important new provision and its relevance is as follows: Clause 17 (1) of the Bill gives power to the Commission to make by-laws regulating the holding of auctions. If the Commission made a by-law which had the effect of reducing the number of auctioneers from four to three in a particular market, it might do so with the full consent of all concerned, everyone recognising that it was a much-needed reform in a particular market. While, however, the by-law power given to the Commission will enable it to make that numerical change, no machinery was provided in the Bill to say which auctioneers should go out and which should remain. That


is a difficult matter to decide. In my view, it is not one on which the Minister is competent to judge or one which the Commission in the first instance should be empowered to decide. It is purely a domestic matter concerning the auctioneers themselves, and if they get this power I understand that they are ready to effect among themselves the rearrangement which will be necessitated. Paragraph (b) provides that the authorised body can decide by the issue of licences after agreement which auctioneers shall in these circumstances be retained. In order to prevent any possible abuse of this power, it is provided that an appeal will lie to the Commission.
As regards the allocation of compensation in such circumstances, a further Amendment will provide that this can also be the subject of arbitration. This is a domestic matter for the auctioneers, but when the safeguards are considered, I feel justified in recommending the new Clause to the House. Like all Service schemes, the one contemplated in the new Clause will be governed by the conditions as to previous discussion and scrutiny to make sure that no interest is adversely affected. The Commission must consult the Livestock Advisory Committee and any other persons concerned, and the Minister, before confirming it must be satisfied and must also operate the machinery of the Fifth Schedule if the scheme is objected to. In the last resort he must lay the scheme before Parliament. I feel quite justified in saying that this Amendment, which will enable collaboration to take place between the auctioneers in particular and the Commission, is hedged about with sufficient safeguards in the public interest, and I recommend it to the House.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: May I ask who either originally or ultimately will be responsible for determining whether it is Johnson, Jones or Thompson of three auctioneers who has got to go out of business? We know that the Commission will have to consult the Livestock Advisory Committee. We now hear that the auctioneers are willing to enter into co-operation with the Commission. But let us assume for a moment that of three or four auctioneers one or more has to go out of business but neither one of the three nor two of the

four will agree to go out of business. When preparing the scheme will it be the duty of the Livestock Advisory Committee to recommend to the Commission which one shall go out of business, and will the Minister finally have to accept the recommendation of the Commission as to which one shall go out of business and take a decision before the scheme is brought to the House? As long as there is co-operation betweeen the Livestock Advisory Committee and the auctioneers themselves, the auctioneers may reach agreement as to who shall be compensated out, but it will be interesting to know which one of the authorities will have to determine, outside arbitration, which one of the redundant auctioneers will have to go out of business.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I should like to ask one question. On a recent Amendment I expressed a strong view, but I abstained from voting because I understand that there is every probability that this Clause will be so operated as to meet the bulk of the cases which we were considering on that Amendment. Paragraph (c) reads:
for the compensation of persons for loss or damage which they may suffer by reason of the operation—
And then it proceeds to set forth the various things that may affect the question of compensation. Here there is no limitation on the compensation. Can the Minister say that it is the case that at least one important branch of employers likely to be affected by this Bill have said that it is their intention if this Clause becomes law to take the necessary steps to institute a service scheme of such a character as will protect their employes who will lose their employment as a result of the operation of the Bill?

7.5 p.m.

Sir R. Tasker: In Clause 17 the Commissioners are empowered to make bylaws. Will there be an opportunity for those who are injuriously affected to make representations to the Minister before he confirms the by-laws?

Captain Heilgers: As far as I can see, the service scheme will be national and the Livestock Markets Order will be confined to an area. I do not see how the two will be reconciled. I should like to


ask the Minister to explain how the two will work in together.

Mr. Morgan: Is it possible for an auctioneer, for example, to be compensated in respect of one market and then to go and set up in business in a neighbouring market?

7.6 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: May I first reply to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams)? He asked me to say who would have the duty of saying which of three auctioneers is to go. The provision we are now discussing is an enabling provision, but assuming it is taken advantage of—as I have good reason to suppose that it will be by the auctioneers —the first person to say which auctioneers will go will be the auctioneers themselves through an authorised body set up under this scheme. In order to prevent exploitation or hardship there will be an appeal to the Commission, and assuming that ultimately Jones, as a result of an appeal, goes, he will be entitled to demand his compensation, and there will be arbitration if necessary as to the amount of compensation.

Mr. T. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman also say whether when Jones, on appeal, has to go out of business and compensation has to be awarded to him, the compensation awarded will be compensation for the auctioneer for loss of business and also in respect of those employes of the auctioneer who is compensated out of the business, or will the scheme only involve compensation for loss of business to the auctioneer and have no regard to his employes?

Mr. Morrison: The answer is that the legislation we are now considering will enable compensation to be awarded in both cases. It will depend on the scheme itself, but the scheme will be scrutinised by the Minister to make sure that it is in the public interest. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) asked me if I had received certain assurances from the auctioneers. I cannot say that I have knowledge of that myself, but I will make inquiries. The hon. Member for Holborn (Sir R. Tasker) asked whether there would be opportunities for persons to protest if they were about to be injuriously affected by a market by-

law. There is an elaborate set of provisions, including an inquiry—in most cases a public inquiry—and all the provisions of the Fifth Schedule apply to enable any person likely to be affected to protest. The hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Capt. Heilgers) asked about the actual working of the compensation fund. That will depend, to some extent, on the machinery which it is thought advisable to set up under this scheme.
The broad outline would be that this scheme, if taken up, would enable the auctioneers throughout the country to set up an authorised body, and, if this were approved, to collect levies from members up and down England and Wales for a compensation fund, and the principle on which compensation would be paid out of the fund to anyone affected would be stated in the scheme. There would be all the opportunities for scrutiny and discussion, and we can be certain that as this is a domestic matter of the auctioneers themselves, their scheme would be such as would commend it to the majority of the House. Beyond that I cannot go into details, because the scheme is not before me. The hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. Morgan) asked whether an auctioneer who was compensated in one market would be entitled to increase the number of auctioneers in a neighbouring market. The answer to that is that the basis of compensation is loss or damage, and unless loss or damage is proved, there is no title to compensation. If it were the case that an auctioneer could survive a livestock market appeal or indeed order, without loss or damage by transferring his business at no loss to some other place in the area, he would suffer no loss, and would have no title to compensation. Loss or damage must be proved in each case. But under this particular Clause the arrangements for compensation and the precise answer to the hon. Member's question will be set out in the scheme.

Mr. Morgan: If you have an auctioneer who has been compensated and in the lapse of time may have conveniently forgotten that he has had that compensation, what is to stop him setting up elsewhere in the neighbourhood?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The answer is that his right to set up in a new place


might be strictly limited by the livestock markets order. I think that the auctioneers can be trusted to look after the auctioneers.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 4.—(Subsidy to producers of fat cattle.)

8.2 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 4, line 17, at the beginning, to insert:
Where the prevailing price for fat cattle is less than the price to be fixed by the Ministers as the standard price and.
I regard this Amendment as the most important Amendment that will be moved on the Report stage. Under Clause 36, in Part VII of the Bill, the Treasury have the power to set aside £5,000,000 per annum to subsidise the producers of fat cattle in this country, and the only conditions so far laid down in the Bill are the conditions as to quality, age, weight, and other incidental matters. So far as the cost of production or the market price is concerned, there seems to be no limitation or condition as to when the £5,000,000 shall be reduced, or when the payments shall cease. All that is laid down in the Bill is that the Ministers responsible, with the Treasury, have the power, if the Bill goes through without such an Amendment as this, to pay £5,000,000 per annum whatever the cost of production may be and whatever the market supplies may be. The Amendment, therefore, invites the Minister or Mi Misters to fix a standard price, so that, when the market price reaches a point above the standard price, there will be no further need for payment of subsidy.
The Minister may, and probably will, argue that, in view of the absence of information as to cost of production, it is impossible for the Ministers to fix a standard price. He may argue that, since prices differ in various places, it would be difficult to fix one standard price that would be equitable in all parts of the country. He may also argue that, in fixing the standard price, he would

have to have some regard to quality, which would make his task infinitely more difficult. I happen to know that there is a constant variation in the price paid in markets all over the country. During the past month, the price at Salisbury has been 51s. per live cwt. for first quality, and at Llandilo, in Wales, it has been 38s. per live cwt., so that at the same time, in the same week, the producer at Llandilo has received 38s. per live cwt. plus 5s. subsidy, or 43s. in all, and the producer at Salisbury has received yrs. per live cwt. plus 5s. subsidy, or 56s. in all.

Sir Joseph Lamb: For the same quality?

Mr. Williams: For first quality in both cases. Those variations recall to my mind the arguments advanced by hon. Members opposite on the Second Reading. Members from Aberdeen, from Norfolk, and from other county constituencies argued that no one could produce fat cattle at less than 5os. per live cwt. One or two suggested a figure of 52s. 6d., but in each case the spokesman of the agriculturists from the Tory benches referred to costs of production that suited his own particular case. If we were to take those Members at their word, the time was reached three weeks ago when no further subsidy ought to have been paid to the Salisbury producer, because he was actually receiving as much as hon. Members argued was necessary for the production of a live cwt. of beef. The Minister has never stated, either to the House or to the Committee which dealt with the Bill, what in his opinion or in the opinion of his colleagues was the appropriate price for a live cwt. of beef. He has never said whether it ought to be 52s., 55s., 50S., 45s., or


whatever it may be, and at least we ought to know from the Government what they think is the appropriate standard price below which they should pay to the producer a subsidy, whatever that subsidy may be. It has been argued that the Minister has the power, after he has accepted one subsidy scheme and that scheme has commenced to operate, to revoke the scheme and make another, but so far we have never been told what would prompt him to make another scheme with regard to the finance of the subsidy. The House and the country are entitled to know just what is in the mind of the Government.
I recall that in 1934, when the price of fat cattle per live cwt. was round about 37s., the Minister argued that that was a non-paying proposition, and the House, therefore, put up £3,000,000 for a period at the rate of 5s. per live cwt., in addition to the 37s., or a total of 42s. per live cwt. That was the average for the country. People in some places would get more, and in others less, according to quality and according to the market. But by January, 1935, the price per live cwt. for first quality had fallen to 32s. 7d., which, with the subsidy of 5s. made a total of 37s. 7d., and it may very well be—I do not profess to be an expert in farm accountancy—that 37s. 7d. was an uneconomic price and that the producers of fat cattle were losing money. But since January, 1935, the average price has increased from 32s. 7d. per live cwt. to, last week, 44s. 6d. If the 5s. was a reasonable subsidy when the average price was only 35s. per cwt. what is a reasonable subsidy when the average price is 44s. 6d.? We are clearly entitled to know that from the Minister. There has been an increase, over the period I have mentioned, of I2S. per live cwt., or 2½ times the amount of the subsidy that has been paid. This increase has been continuous over the last three or four months, and prices are still on the upward grade.
Clause 36 of the Bill sets out to provide £5,000,000 per annum for subsidy, and the payment for first quality is to be 7s. 6d. per live cwt. instead of 5s., as it is to-day, so that, if the Bill remains without Amendment, and we take last week's prices as our guide, we shall have this situation: As compared with the figure of 37s. per live cwt. when the

subsidy commenced, plus 5s. subsidy, making 42s., we now have an average price of 44s. 6d., and we contemplate giving a subsidy of 7s. 6d. instead of 5s., so we shall be giving 7s. 6d. plus 44s. 6d., which will make 52s. per live cwt. What I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman, and what this Amendment calls for, is: At what price will he cease paying the subsidy for the production of livestock? The House is clearly entitled to know that.
Then there is another point about which we are entitled to know something. At Doncaster a fortnight ago the price was 41s. per live cwt. At Dorchester it was 46s., at Hull 40s. 6d., at Carlisle 46s. 6d., at Louth 40s. and at Salisbury 48s. 6d. The House is clearly entitled to know why the producer at Salisbury gets 48s. 6d. per live cwt., plus 5s. subsidy, while the producer at Doncaster gets only 41s., plus 5s. subsidy. Does it cost more to produce in the Salisbury area than near Doncaster, or are there other factors intervening, apart from quality, which make this difference of 7s. 6d., because, assuming that all the factors are fairly uniform, clearly if the Doncaster producer can manage on a price of 41s., plus 5s. subsidy, the Salisbury producer, who will get 48s. 6d. without subsidy, does not require any subsidy.
That seems to me a very simple and, I hope, a very clear case for a thorough explanation from the Minister as to what the policy of the Government really is. We do not ask them to get the production of each one of 50,000 farms. That would be ridiculous. We have our research stations and agricultural institutions. The right hon. Gentleman said it was not a job for the Commission to potter about with costs. That was obviously the duty of the research stations, and we entirely agree, but the Commission ought to know from the scientific institutions just what the cost of production is. If the Minister of Labour wants to make a statement on the categories of unemployed, young, old or middle aged, or whatever it may be, he does not go to the 1,600,000 who are out of work and take the whole lot. What he does is to take a sample of certain types of cases throughout the country, and he is guided in his future Parliamentary action by the results of those samples.
For costing purposes there is no reason why the Commission should not take


samples of ordinary average farms in various parts of the country. They would then know something about variations in price, they would know exactly what they wanted to know about costs of production, and they would know exactly what subsidy, if any, was called for to make the production of beef a paying proposition. The Bill, as it stands, says only that regulations shall be made which shall determine the subsidy to be paid for a certain class of animal. It must come up to a certain standard in weight, must be beyond a certain age, and must fulfil certain conditions, but there are no arrangements laid down whereby, if the market price reaches a certain point, the subsidy automatically starts to decrease. That is a very serious loophole in the Bill and I hope the right hon. Gentleman is going to repair it. We on these benches have been charged with never wanting to do the decent thing for the farmer. That charge is unjustifiable. If it is true that the cost of production has no near relation to the existing market price and the subsidy must be paid for the preservation of agriculture, there would be no objection perhaps to paying the subsidy if we knew that the farmer and not the landowner received it, but when we agree to a subsidy we ought to know the whole facts as to the cost of production and what is the fair price, and then perhaps we should be much more whole-hearted in support of legislation introduced by right hon. Gentlemen opposite than we have been so far.
I move the Amendment with every confidence that at least that handful of Members who are present and who want to be as fair to the taxpayer, the consumer, and the nation as a whole as they want to be to the producer, will support it, because by such an Amendment they would know that at no time in the future would the producer be losing money, we should have the cost of production and the market price before us, and we should know exactly what subsidy, if any, was justified in the circumstances.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. Riley: I beg to second the Amendment.
The provision of the subsidy without any regulation as to a standard price must, I think, strike most Members as being a most unbusinesslike proceeding.

By this Clause the State is providing for handing over probably £5,000,000 per annum in subsidy to the raisers of cattle, irrespective of the price obtained for them. If the price rises, as it has risen, and goes far beyond even the amount which farmers say would be quite satisfactory under the Bill as it stands, they would still be entitled to the subsidy. Assuming that the farmer puts the cost price at 50s. or 55s. and in the course of a year's marketing it rises to 65s., he will still receive the subsidy. On what grounds can it possibly be defended? It is very much on the lines of the derating system, which relieves people making huge profits of 75 per cent. of their rates. It may be said that it is difficult to fix upon a costings basis, or the cost of the beast of, say, 10 or 11 cwt., but there is no difficulty about quality, because the regulations provide that for the ordinary quality of beef there is to be a subsidy of 5s. for home-grown and 2s. 6d. for imported. There is a better quality and for that they are to get 7s. 6d. for home-grown and 5s. for imported. They know what the quality is anyhow, and why cannot they get the costings? Surely it is not impossible to obtain the co-operation of enlightened farmers who would be willing to lay before the Commission the actual facts of their costings, and by such means the average cost might very well be arrived at. In these circumstances, if prices rise in consequence of changes in market and general industrial conditions, the subsidy should come down accordingly. As it stands now, as my hon. Friend has said, it is a case of giving a blank cheque to the agricultural industry, irrespective of the needs of the situation. On these grounds, I second the Amendment.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. Price: I rise to support the argument of my hon. Friend, because what has been done for milk and for wheat should also be done for beef. There is now something in the nature of a sliding scale in the subsidy to these two farm commodities. Owing to the general rise in world prices for wheat, the deficiency payment on that commodity has now fallen to a few pence per cwt., and, therefore, the taxpayer, or the consumer in this case, is spared the extra money which has had to be found hitherto for making up the deficiency on the wheat


price. There is a similar case in respect of milk at the present time, where, owing to the rise in imported dairy produce, the guarantee which the State is giving to keep the price of manufactured milk at 5d. a gallon is now much less than it was before. Indeed, I think that it has disappeared altogether. What is possible for these commodities should be possible for beef also.
I can see no provision in the Bill which will do anything to provide a sliding scale which would save the taxpayer expense if the price of fat cattle should rise. There is very definite indication that we are not going to experience the same low price for fat stock in the future as we have been experiencing in the past. Until now there is no doubt that the position has been very bad indeed for the farmer. There can be no doubt whatever that over very large areas the feeders have been losing money. At the same time—and here I come to another point to which my hon. Friends referred and which I wish also to stress—the case is very strong for getting more facts about the costs of production.
When we were in Committee on the Bill, I supported Amendments requiring the Commission to take steps to calculate the costs of production figures and general farm costs relating to the feeding of fat stock, because here we have a very clear example of the need for getting this information. There are farmers of whom I am aware, who, all through these very difficult times, have just been able to get through and get their costs of production, even with the existing low prices. They are favourably situated, their cattle do not require very heavy feeding on cake and other feeding stuffs, and their farms are also efficiently managed, and even at the price which then prevailed, of 38s. a live cwt., they were able to get through with it. There are others who, if the price were 45s. or even 50s. a cwt., would not get through with it. They are not feeding farmers at all, but rearing farmers. We ought to know, on the basis of figures produced by the research stations, where those areas are. We should then be able to get some idea as to what rate the subsidy should be, instead of the sort of hit-and-miss arrangement that we have now of just thinking of a figure, which may perhaps

be right, and putting it into a Bill which then becomes the law.
We want to know these facts, because prices are rising at the present time, and we are not going to have a continuation of the low prices we have had for some time past. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has. quoted prices for first quality beef, which vary from district to district. All through these figures one can see a much higher level now than was the case two or three months ago. We may even reach 50s. per live cwt. if things go on like this, and if that is the case, why should we, in addition, be paying this extra subsidy? We shall be giving up to 55s., and, in the case of first quality beef, 57s. 6d. a cwt., which would be a gross imposition upon the taxpayer of the country. As one who has all along supported the principle that the State should assist the livestock industry. I consider that the subsidy proposed in the Bill is right, but I want to see it scientifically applied, efficiently administered and given in such a way as will create confidence in the general public that the producers are doing their best, and not just getting a subsidy and getting away with it without giving something in return. Nothing would be more likely to create a feeling that agriculture is not an industry which should be supported than to give subsidies without proper control, and for that reason I am hopeful that the Minister will give us some indication that he is prepared to do something to meet us on this. matter, because the standard price and all that it involves are essential to the proper working of this Measure. Just as we have it in the other branches of agriculture to which I have referred, so. we ought to have it in regard to meat, in order that the maximum inducement can be given to efficient production and the taxpayer will not be asked to contribute when the industry is not really in need. I do not argue that the subsidy is not needed, but I say that if the market conditions go on as they are to-day the argument for a sliding scale will be irresistible.

8.36 p.m.

Sir J. Lamb: I hope the Minister wilt not incorporate the Amendment in the Bill. My hon. Friend who has just spoken is a practical man and he will realise that the analogy he drew between


milk, wheat and meat is not a good one, because in the case of wheat and milk the article is to a certain extent standardised, whereas meat is not. Meat varies very much in quality and description. An animal which might be very suitable and be looked upon as first grade for one particular market would not suit entirely another market. There are some areas where a large heavy animal is more suitable than in another area, because perhaps there are many more restaurants where they use large joints, whereas in another district the smaller joints would be of greater value and consequently of higher quality.
What I object to in the Amendment principally is that it only acts one way. If the price goes up then the subsidy is to be decreased, but if the price goes down there is no provision that the subsidy should be increased. Consequently, as it is proposed the Amendment would act unfairly and only on one side, and that against the producer. It would be very much better to wait until we come to the next Clause, which is the real answer to the Amendment. Under that Clause the Commission will have to consider the question of the scheme under which the subsidy is given. It will have full power to obtain any information which is available before submitting a scheme to the Minister, and when the Minister has approved it that scheme must lie on the Table of the House for our consideration. That is the time when we could discuss the particular scheme. Although prices may be ascertained as being suitable in one case they might vary considerably in another. Weather conditions have a great deal to do with the progress and growth of an animal and also with the natural food produced from the soil.
Again, there are conditions which are outside our control but which rule the cost of the imported foodstuffs which the producer has to buy for the animals to consume. All these things have to be taken into consideration, and the liability of variations makes it almost impossible to say what would be the cost of production to be put into the Bill. It is, therefore, very much better to leave it to the Commission to make their full inquiries and after deliberation bring forward their scheme, which we shall have the right to criticise when it comes to the House.

8.39 p.m.

Mr. Leslie: We understood that the subsidy of £5,000,000 was to assist the farming interests in the production of cattle. We were told that the prevailing price was insufficient to recoup the farmer, and that was the reason for the subsidy. We will assume that a costing system was brought into operation. That will determine whether or not the selling price for the cattle shows a profit. That should not be difficult to ascertain, and once it is ascertained it would surely not be the intention of the Government to give a subsidy to the farmers if they could produce cattle at a profit. When the production of livestock becomes a paying proposition the Government cannot intend to continue to pay subsidy to the particular farmer or the district where the cattle have reached a high price.

Sir J. Lamb: The Commission will see to all that.

8.40 p.m.

Major Dorman-Smith: I have great sympathy with the idea of a standard price and I should be perfectly happy if we could arrive at a standard price. I can assure hon. Members that the farmers have no desire to fleece the public. All that they want is to get a fair price which will enable them to stock their land properly and to keep their land going. The difficulty about the Amendment is that it operates in only one direction. I would ask hon. Members whether, if it was found that the £5,000,000 was insufficient to bridge the gap between the selling price and the standard price, they would be prepared to recommend that more subsidy should be given than the £5,000,000. I think they would probably think twice before doing that. That is where the trap comes in. The farming community are trying to do their best to keep their land properly and to keep their workers employed under proper conditions, but it costs money. Therefore, I hope the Minister will not accept the Amendment until we have very much more information and until the whole House is prepared to make this thing work both ways, so that if the £5,000,000 is not sufficient they will give more. It is a matter of common knowledge that during the last two years the £5,000,000 would not have bridged the gap between the standard price and the selling price.


Until we can get the assurance of very much more exact information, I hope the Amendment will not be accepted.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. Marshall: I have listened very carefully to the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) and the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Major Dorman-Smith), who both appeared to me to put forward some strange reasons why they do not support the Amendment. They put forward the idea that if the price increased there would be a decreasing subsidy and that if the price decreased there should be an increasing subsidy. I should like to know where the farming industry is going to be if we are going to safeguard it like that. If we are going to take all risks out of farming, if we are going to leave the farmer with no need to exercise initiative or enterprise, which is the quality that we are told in this House is possessed by private enterprise, I want to put a straight question, and that is, that if we are to do all that for the farming industry why not boldly face nationalisation? If we are to have a farming industry without risk, are we going to subsidise and bolster up inefficiency?
I was much impressed by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price). His knowledge of farming is extensive and exact. He is in the industry himself, and there can be no disputing his knowledge of it. He has pointed out that the price of fat cattle is gradually increasing and that there are no safeguards in the Bill which will prevent a subsidy being given to farmers when they are making quite a good thing out of it. The object of the Amendment is to put these safeguards in the Bill, so that we shall not give public money to people who are making really good profits. I take it that the price of farming products depends, like many other things, on the general state of prosperity in the country. If you have miners and engineers and steel producers earning better wages they will be able to buy more meat and a better quality of meat, and prices will go up. There is every prospect that the prices of farm products are going up and that it will be an economic proposition to produce them. Therefore, the industry will not need the subsidy.
I want to ask what the Minister is going to do when that time comes. Is he going to pay a subsidy to farmers who do not need it, to producers of fat cattle who do not need it? Is he going to dole out public money into the laps of farmers when they do not need it? We are entitled to an answer to that question. There are no safeguards in the Bill. We are going to pay public money to the farming industry, but there are no safeguards at all for the public purse, and we are entitled to ask that they shall be placed in the Bill.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Haslam: The hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. Marshall) has said that there are no safeguards whatever in the Bill against paying a subsidy when perhaps the price of fat stock is rather high. While that seems very unlikely to happen after all the bad years, which have so impoverished the livestock producer and the land of this country, let me draw his attention to a Sub-section in Clause 5, which says:
The Ministers may withdraw their approval of any subsidy arrangements approved by them, and may approve subsidy arrangements varying or superseding subsidy arrangements previously approved by them.
Therefore, the answer to the present Amendment is in the next Clause. After all, the farming industry were prepared to accept a standard price. That is what they have asked for, but the Minister in introducing the Bill on Second Reading said this could not be done and that it would be better to have a fixed subsidy. Are hon. Members going back on that? They cannot have it both ways. Surely, if farmers are denied a fixed price, if they have suffered gravely from low and reduced prices, are they still to suffer? Is it the proposition of hon. Members opposite that as soon as prices get a little better and they have a chance to improve their stock and their land the subsidy is to be cut off? That is a most unreasonable proposition.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: In moving this Amendment the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) prophesied that I should say that that it was impossible to accept it because of the difficulty of fixing a standard price. I am afraid that is so. It is impossible with our present knowledge to fix a standard price which would be equitable and satisfactory to the indus-


try. I need not dwell on the various reasons which make it impossible, but, obviously, there are great differences in local conditions, differences between one county and another and between one farm and another, and difference also in the seasons. But the fact remains that it is not a matter of practical politics to fix a standard price satisfactory to the industry. It would be very convenient indeed if we could. It would get us over a lot of our difficulties if we could fix a standard price, as we can for coal or steel. But the farming industry is so absolutely different that it is not a possible operation and, therefore, on practical grounds alone I shall have to resist the Amendment.
The hon. Member also drew attention to the difference in price between a sale in Salisbury and a sale in a small Welsh village, whose name I did not catch and even if I did I could not pronounce. I think it is difficult to argue from a single case, but in the case of Salisbury and the Welsh village the disparity arose probably because of the different breeds which were being sold, but also partly because of different local conditions and partly because the reporter in reporting first quality meat adopted a fairly wide range of products as coming within the definition of "first quality." At any rate, it is difficult to argue from an isolated case. The hon. Member asked what the Government thought to be the right price and gave figures showing the rise in prices since 1934. In that connection may I remind him of something which was said on the Second Reading when a similar point was put? The point then was that the assistance to the industry should be postponed until the standard price or the actual cost of production could be arrived at. The hon. Member will realise that if the Amendment were accepted it would mean postponing the assistance until we could ascertain the standard price and that might require a long investigation. But that is by the way. What I said then was:
I think it was in 1933 that there was a collapse in cattle prices, and the object of the subsidy then was to stop the rot and to give temporary assistance. The cattle industry had suddenly slipped off the ledge and was falling into the abyss, and an endeavour had to be made to pull it back. On the basis at that time of the average realised price of the recent years before the collapse it was assumed that a figure of 5s. per cwt. would be just

about enough to put the industry back on to the ledge.
No doubt what was in the mind of the Government of that time was the criterion behind the actual figure of 5s. As I said on that occasion:
in regard to the present Bill it is desired, and I think the House is fully in accord with the desire, to encourage the production of a better product, and for that purpose there is an increase in the amount of money made available of £1,000,000, making up the total of £5,000,000."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1937; col. 419, Vol. 319.]
The hon. Member should bear this in mind. He is criticising a possible figure which the producer may obtain. Since the years he quoted there has undoubtedly been a rise in the cost of production, and he also quoted figures at a particular time of the year when a peak period is approaching. We do not know what the ultimate figure may be. Past experience has led us to expect a considerable drop. I hope that will not occur, but we cannot say from the experience of one or two months of comparatively high prices that they will necessarily be durable.

Mr. T. Williams: We do riot ask that, should the necessity arise as a result of the market price fluctuating downwards as well as upwards, no assistance should be available to the industry. All we say is that the Government must first of all have made up their mind that a certain price is necessary for beef production to continue, and have based the subsidy of 5s. on that price, thereby putting the farmers on the ledge. Since that time there has been an average all-round increase of, say, 9s. a live cwt. All we ask the Government to do is to fix a standard price and then, on the assumption that the subsidy is correct, the Treasury will know exactly what their future obligations are likely to be.

Mr. Ramsbotham: The hon. Member had not come into the Chamber when I was dealing with the standard price. I said what he prophesied I would say, that it was so difficult to fix a standard price that at the present time, in our present state of knowledge, it would not be a matter of practical politics to fix a basis for the standard price. The hon. Member asked at what price the Government would cease to pay the subsidy, and there again, in view of our present knowledge and in view of the impossibility of having a reliable fixed figure as the stan-


dard price, we can only watch events and be guided by the course of prices and the costs of production. The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) took the Wheat Act and the Milk Act as an analogy, but I think my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) pointed out correctly that it is not possible to make an analogy between comparatively specialised industries such as the milk and wheat industries, in which it is possible to get figures which are approximately of general application and the beef industry where the conditions vary so remarkably and where the problem of mixed farming makes the obtaining of reliable accounts a task of doubtful realisation. I have no particular malice against obtaining the costs of production and fixing a standard price, but it is not possible to do so.
The effect of this Amendment would be to secure an automatic reduction in the subsidy as cattle prices rose. That would be possible if one could fix a standard price, but in view of the impossibility of fixing on a price which one could take as a datum line from which to make a sliding scale, the Government are doing all they can in the Bill to provide safeguards which will protect the public purse from any unjustifiable inroad by the producers. In Clause 4 (2) we begin by laying down that
Every subsidy payment in respect of an animal or carcase, shall be computed in such manner as may be prescribed in relation to animals or carcases, as the case may be, by an order made by the Ministers, after consultation with the Commission, and approved by the Treasury; and an order under this Subsection may make different provision in relation to different descriptions of animals or their carcases.
There is ample provision here for a revision or a reduction if it is thought to be necessary. In the White Paper which sets out the arrangements, it is stated that:
The rates of subsidy that will be prescribed from time to time will take account of the market situation.
That is a clear indication of the Government's intention to watch the trend of prices and costs of production, and to see that rates of subsidy are prescribed from time to time in accordance with the market situation. Clause 37 lays upon the Commission the duty of producing estimates of expenses for each accounting

period, and clearly the Minister's recommendation to the Treasury as to the amount of the subsidy will be made in the light of those estimates. Finally, the House will have control over the Minister when he asks for the expenditure required. I suggest that, in view of the regrettable impossibility of obtaining a figure which could reasonably be set down as a proper figure on which to work, namely, a standard price, taking into account the costs of production, the market price and so forth, the Government are doing all they can under this Bill to watch the trend of prices and to see that the subsidy is a fair one and is not excessive or unfair to the general public.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Paling: I have listened to the Minister with great attention and interest. On previous occasions when we have discussed the question of a subsidy for agriculture, I have heard the argument about the difficulty of arriving at a standard price, but I have not yet heard any good argument in favour of doing what we are doing at the present time—nothing. The Minister referred to the impossibility of arriving at a standard price, but I cannot see that it is impossible. It may be that it would be a matter of some difficulty, but why is not some attempt made to arrive at it? There are agricultural research stations going into this business, and I am told that if arrangements were made for this knowledge to be obtained, it could be obtained. No attempt is being made under this Bill to obtain it. If the Minister had said that he realised the importance of getting information on which he could arrive at a standard price, and that steps were to be taken in the near future, we might have been more satisfied; but he did not do so; he said it would be difficult, and that, therefore nothing was to be done.

Lieut.-Colonel the Marquess of Titchfield: If the hon. Member wishes to know the reason we cannot fix a standard price, it is this: one cannot tell what the weather will be like during the next six months. If the hon. Member could guarantee that the weather would be hot, or warm, or cold, or up to a certain temperature, it would be possible to do it, but none of us in the House can foretell what the weather will be during the next six months.

Mr. Paling: The weather cannot alter this subsidy, the cost prices and so forth.

Marquess of Titchfield: Obviously, the weather does not control the subsidy, but it controls what cattle will be in the market during the next six months. Anybody who knows anything about farming knows that that is so.

Mr. Paling: If one accepts the Noble Lord's argument, if the weather is extremely good during the next six months, many farmers will not need the subsidy.

Marquess of Titchfield: Can the hon. Member guarantee the weather?

Mr. Paling: No, but I know that the Noble Lord wants the subsidy whether the weather is good, bad or indifferent. Like the other farmers and landlords in the House, for the last year or two he has been using all his power and all his political influence in order to get as much out of the public purse as he could, and he has been fairly successful.
To return to my previous argument, I wish the Minister would at least tackle the problem, and, even if it is difficult, try to overcome it. It is a serious thing, indeed, if we are to be asked to continue this subsidy in perpetuity, but I can see no attempt in the Bill to safeguard us in that respect. Even if the price of beef goes sky high, there is nothing in the Bill about discontinuing the subsidy. I believe there is a White Paper which makes some vague and tentative suggestions as to what may be done in the future, perhaps years ahead, but there is nothing in the Bill. Yet I am told that the price of beef has risen by 9s. per cwt. on the average since this subsidy was granted. When the price was actually 9s. lower than it is to-day, it was calculated that a 5s. subsidy would bring the industry "back on to the ledge of safety." But now they have another 9s. on the price in addition to the subsidy. They must be pretty safe now. I wonder whether the Minister of Pensions would consider the present price, with that addition of 9s., a standard price? Would the Noble Lord consider it a standard price? Would it be good enough for him? I do not suppose it would.
The hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) said that if it were proposed to reduce the subsidy as the price went up, we should also agree to increase it, as the

price went down. The hon. Member is not asking for much. What has become of the old initiative of the entrepreneur, of the captain of industry about whom we used to hear—the private profit-maker who never wanted Parliament to interfere with him? Years ago we used to hear the declaration, "Keep your hands off industry." Where is the old yeoman spirit of which we used to boast? All that Members on the Government side do now is to come down to this House to beg, threaten, cajole, bully and pray in order to get their hands deeper into the public purse. And then the Noble Lord says, "If you can guarantee the weather we might be able to do something." A sum of £3,000,000 for this purpose is coming out of a levy on the price of imported beef which is mainly paid by the poor, but despite that fact hon. Members opposite want this subsidy to be made permanent, however high the price of beef may rise. They do not want a standard price. They do not want anything which will cause this subsidy to be discontinued. The hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Haslam) told us that we had a safeguard in Clause 5. I fail to see it. The Clause says:
It shall be the duty of the Commission to submit from time to time to the Ministers particulars of subsidy arrangements and, if the Ministers so direct, to carry into effect any such arrangements approved by the Ministers. The subsidy arrangements shall include arrangements for the issue…of such certificates as are required for the purposes of this Part of this Act, and for determining the places at which, and the persons by whom, animals may be certified for the said purposes.
It says nothing about a standard price or about stopping the subsidy. It refers merely to the arrangements for the subsidy and not to the subsidy itself.

Mr. Haslam: The Sub-section which I quoted is Sub-section (3), which provides that Ministers may withdraw their approval of any subsidy arrangements approved by them.

Mr. Paling: Yes, they may withdraw their approval of arrangements for paying the 5s. subsidy, but they may not withdraw the 5s. subsidy itself. If I am wrong in that, the Minister will correct me. I had hoped, in view of the fact that there has been a rise which is giving the farmers the equivalent of a decent price—and I am pleased to know it—that it would have been found possible


to accept this Amendment. I had hoped that while guaranteeing the farmer a reasonable price, the Government would at least have guaranteed to the consumer that when a reasonable price had been reached, he would no longer have to pay this subsidy.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. Acland: ; The Minister of Pensions sought to defeat this Amendment by saying that while he would like to accept it, such a proposal would be technically impossible. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman on the technicalities. Probably he is right when he says it is difficult to define a standard price. I am glad the Minister of Agriculture is back in his place, because I wish to ask him whether he accepts the principle underlying the Amendment, namely, that a subsidy must vary inversely with the prosperity of the industry. Does he agree that when the prosperity of the industry goes up, the subsidy should go down and vice versa? Is it his intention to act on that principle? I am aware that he has power so to act and I think the solution of the dispute between the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling) and the hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Haslam) is to be found in the fact that the hon. Member for Horncastle ought to have referred to Sub-section (1) of Clause 8. It actually contains the powers which he thought were in Sub-section (3) of Clause 5.
The Minister has power, if he chooses, to vary the subsidy. Is it his intention not to concern himself with such precise things as standard price or prevailing price but to feel the pulse of the industry, to make himself acquainted with the general tone of the industry and when that general tone is better to reduce the subsidy and when it is worse, to increase the subsidy. If that is the principle on which he intends to act, will he not accept another principle which is that when a Minister intends to administer subsidies in accordance with certain fundamental principles, those principles ought to appear in the Measure which creates the subsidy? If the right hon. Gentleman accepts that principle, even though he feels that he must reject this Amendment, will he try to find some Amendment which would be apt to describe the fundamental principle that subsidy should vary inversely with prosperity? Will the Minister look at the

Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) which, I believe, is not to be called, for I think it avoids some of the technical difficulties of the Amendment we are now discussing?

9.16 p.m.

Sir E. Shepperson: As I listened with great pleasure to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling) I came to the conclusion that I should like him to come and speak in my constituency. He said that we who represent agriculture were never happy unless we were coming to the Government asking for money, and that we had been very successful in that direction. I only hope that, if he did come into my constituency, he would convince my constituents that I had been successful in obtaining money for them. I would join with the hon. Member in supporting the standard price and a limit of the subsidy if the selling price rose too high, but only under the conditions, with which I am sure he will agree, that when the price fell, so that the subsidy and the price did not reach the standard price, he would consent to an increased subsidy. I am sure from the speech which he has made that he would not ask British agriculture to go on producing beef at a loss. If we could be sure that he would consent to an increase in the subsidy when the prices fall, we should be pleased to support the Amendment. I am confident, however, from what I know of hon. Members on that side, that if we asked for an increased subsidy when prices went down, they would be against us.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. T. Smith: I have heard the Minister make many speeches in this House at one time and another, but I have never heard him make a more wobbly speech than the one he has made on this Amendment. We on this side do not believe it is impossible to fix a fair standard price. If it cannot be done there must be something wrong in the Ministry of Agriculture and in the agricultural industry. The farmers of this country are not quite so ignorant as some hon. Members try to make out. We want to get a proper costing system so that we can know whether these continual subsidies are wanted. Recently I had the opportunity of visiting many places in different parts


of the Empire, and farmers told me of the cost of production of wool and other things. They had no hesitation in saying what the costs of production were, what price would satisfy them, what price they got, and what profit they made. Do hon. Members opposite really mean to say that we cannot get a proper standard price? We want to find out whether what took place in regard to the coal subsidy is taking place in regard to this £5,000,000 subsidy. I am not surprised the Noble Lord has gone out of the House. If he had been here I should have told him one or two things. It used to be a theory that unemployment was caused by spots on the sun and that if the spots could be removed unemployment would be cured. I am not sure that the Noble Lord has not gone out to consult a barometer.
What took place in the coal industry? There were colliery owners not far from the Noble Lord's constituency who admitted that when they were drawing a subsidy of 1s. 3d. a ton, they were actually making 5s. a ton profit. There were colliery owners who went before the Samuel Commission and admitted that the subsidy was money for nothing. One of them was connected with the Markham group. Why should the State be called upon to give a subsidy to a business that is making profits? If we had a fixed standard. price and the selling price reached it, there ought to be no subsidy. When the subsidy first started, it was stated in the House that the average price was 35s. 9d. per cwt. Within 12 months it had fallen to 32s. 7d., but now the average price is 44s. 6d. We are pleased to know that there has been an improvement of prices. I would like hon. Gentlemen opposite to know that there are Members on these benches who believe that the farmers are entitled to fair and economic prices for their products. Nevertheless, we are suspicious of all this talk about poverty.

Sir E. Shepperson: Would the hon. Member agree that if the price fell so that the subsidy and the price did not meet the cost of production, the subsidy should be increased?

Mr. Smith: I will give the answer that any Minister would give—I must have notice of that question. However this Clause is interpreted, the £5,000,000

subsidy will be exhausted, no matter how high a level the selling price reaches. We shall not see the Minister coming to-the House and saying, "The selling price is at a certain figure and there is no need for the subsidy." What hon. Members opposite are after is as much subsidy as they can get. The people in the industrial centres are complaining about these subsidies, and I hope the Amendment will be pressed to a Division.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: This Amendment is the most important of those under the consideration of the House. If a standard price cannot be provided for in the Bill, it is clear that there is something wrong with the agricultural industry. Standard prices can be fixed for anything now, and the phrase "standard price" has become a commonplace in our language. The agricultural industry, however, is continually pretending that they are a clannish set of ignorant people who must be spoon-fed by the State. It is not true that farming is in a poor state. I arrived late in the House to-day through being detained in Newcastle, where I met a Northumbrian farmer. He stated that they in Northumberland were doing extremely well. I am prepared to give the Minister the name of that farmer. If the price should fall below a profitable basis, the subsidy certainly ought to be raised. We are as anxious as the Minister that agriculture should be maintained on a proper basis. I have never opposed the idea of subsidies. They are becoming an integral part of the normal business of the State. But they must be given under proper safeguards as far as the Treasury is concerned. But here there are to be no safeguards. There is to be a subsidy to the rich whether they require it or not, a repetition of the sugar-beet subsidy under which fancy dividends can be paid to persons.
If this form of subsidy, without question and in perpetuity, were correct, why did not the Government apply it to the shipping industry? There they pursued a normal businesslike course. They fixed a standard year, 1929, in which they stated that, by examination, shipping was a profitable industry. It was not making fancy profits; there were no extravagant fortunes to be made; the business of the industry was normal. The Government wisely fixed 1929 as the basic


year and stated that if and when the freight market should rise to the level of 1929 the subsidy should automatically cease. This year the 1929 level has just been reached. In some markets it has been slightly exceeded and the subsidy will accordingly not be paid. All we want is justice. What is simple and elementary for the shipping industry can be made so for agriculture. It is for that reason that the country is bound to conclude that there are dishonest tactics being applied by the Minister of Agriculture in order to pretend that we have here so ignorant an industry that it is incapable of fixing standard prices as other industries can and so be able to continue in perpetuity to receive large subsidies.

9.27 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: I would not have intervened, but I was hoping that the Minister of Agriculture would have made a statement on this important principle of agricultural policy. I know that the Minister of Pensions did his best to deal with the technicalities, but, after all, he is a mere makeshift, not even a member of the department with which this Bill is concerned. I understood that this was a temporary makeshift to deal with an emergency. I believe that the word used was a "lifebuoy," to stop the industry being destroyed by a world-wide lowering of prices. We have no right as the House of Commons, guardians of the public purse, to brush aside this Amendment unless we have a clear statement from the Government. We want to make it clear that as soon as prices have returned to a reasonable remuneration to the agricultural industry then this subsidy, an undesirable new feature in our political life, shall be swept away. The hon. Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) was quite blatant about it. He wants us to go down to his constituency and act as relieving officers. But we have a responsibility.

Sir E. Shepperson: I want to correct that.

Sir P. Harris: This is a tendency in our public life, but we have a responsibility to the taxpayers as a whole. When the burdens of the public are very heavy, when we have these great commitments on all sides and when the nation is being asked to find money on a scale almost unprecedented, we should be quite

sure that the Minister has not committed his Government and the country to a permanent tax. We had a reasonable Amendment on the Order Paper. Apparently it is not to be called because this Amendment is being considered. We are not unreasonable; no Member of this House is unreasonable. We realise that agriculture in the last year or two has been through severe times, and therefore we consider this Bill, not in a critical spirit, but we want the Minister to understand that it is an emergency Bill. If it is to be made a permanent part of agricultural policy, we shall resist the Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman will not have such a smooth passage for the new Clauses as he has had so far.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: To avoid any appearance of discourtesy to the House, I will respond to the invitations which have been made to me to make a statement. I think that every farmer throughout the country will agree with me that he will be only too happy to dispense with the subsidy as soon as the prosperity of the industry is such as to enable him to do without it. The farmers have no desire for any subsidy that is not necessary for the maintenance of the livestock industry, but they realise that the livestock industry is necessary to the fertility of our fields, that it is a national asset and deserves national consideration and assistance. I had intended to make a general statement on the subsidy on an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). All I would say now is that hon. Members have mentioned the recent improvement in prices, but let us not shout until we are out of the wood. Let us remember that this increase comes after a long period of depression, which has reduced the fertility of our fields. It is offset by certain facts which are really very important. Stores were dear last autumn. That has to be deducted from the price at present obtainable for fat cattle. Also—it is common knowledge —there has been a great rise in the cost of feeding stuffs, which has gone a great way to offset the increase in price. I am not unhopeful of a return to more normal conditions in prices.
I think that some hon. Members are sometimes apt to view the efficiency of the subsidy from a very depressed


trough. I would not like Members on the other side to view its adequacy from what might be a seasonal rise. There is in the Bill adequate power for Treasury consultation and for control by Parliament in the last resort; and no Government would ever consent to an expenditure on this industry which was not necessary—great as its importance is to the national welfare—at the present time. I hope the House will agree with me that that is the wisest course. I must resist the Amendment because, before I could do anything, it would impose upon me the duty of ascertaining a standard price. The Minister of Pensions has described the difficulties which would beset such an undertaking, and they are very considerable, and I hope that hon. Members, though they are entitled to express their point of view, and I have listened to their views, will not think it necessary to impose upon me the duty of ascertaining a theoretical figure of this character which has no relation to the realities and necessities of the situation before this assistance is given to this industry.

Mr. T. Williams: Surely the right hon. Gentleman would not charge us with doing that, because he knows that the subsidy is being paid at present, and will be paid, presumably, until this Bill becomes operative, so that even if the right hon. Gentleman did attempt to provide himself with a standard price that

would not affect the payment of the existing subsidy.

Mr. Morrison: I quite accept that statement. The present arrangement will continue until this new arrangement comes into operation. What I meant to suggest was that it is unreasonable, in view of the difficulties of ascertaining an accurate standard price to hang up the whole of the provisions we have made for rendering this assistance until we have achieved that remarkable arithmetical feat. We have had an excellent discussion on this very important matter, and it would be a great convenience if we could now proceed to an expression of our opinion upon it.

Mr, Acland: Can the Minister say, yes or no, whether he takes the view that the subsidy must vary with the prosperity of the industry?

Mr. Morrison: I thought that I had already clearly said that as soon as the industry is prosperous enough to do without any subsidy at all—I am sure I shall have the support of every farmer in this country in saying this—we shall desire to see it removed.

Hon. Members: Question.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 92; Noes, 197.

Division No. 181.]
AYES.
[9.37 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Griffiths, G. A.(Hemsworth)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Nuff, G.


Adams, D.M. (Poplar, S.)
Hardie, G. D.
Owen, Major G.


Adamson, W. M.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Paling, W.


Ammon, C. G.
Henderson, A.(Kingswinford)
Parker, J.


Anderson, F.(Whitehaven)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Parkinson, J. A.


Barnes, A. J,
Henderson, T.(Tradeston)
Potts, J.


Barr, J.
Hollins, A.
Price, M. P.


Bellenger, F. J.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Bevan, A.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Bromfield, W.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Ridley, G.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Riley, B.


Burke, W. A.
Kelly, W. T.
Roberts. W. (Cumberland, N.)


Cape, T.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Rowson, G.


Chater, D.
Kirby, B. V.
Sexton. T. M.


Cluse, W. S.
Lathan, G.
Silkin, L.


Dalton, H.
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Day, H.
Leonard, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Leslie, J. R.
Sorensen, R. W.


Ede, J. C.
Logan, D. G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Lunn, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Gallacher, W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Thurtle, E.


Gardner, B. W.
McEntee, V. La T.
Tinker, J. J.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McGhee, H. G.
Viant, S. P.


Gibbins, J.
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Walkden, A. G.


Green, W. H.(Deptford)
Marshall, F.
Watson, W. MoL.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon, A.
Messer, F.
Westwood, J.


Grenfell, D. R.
Milner, Major J.
White, H. Graham




Whiteley, W.
Woods, G.S.(Finsbury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Mr. Groves and Mr. Charleton.


Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)






NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. O. J.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Radford, E. A.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Furness, S.N.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Ramsbotham, H.


Albery, Sir Irving
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Gluckstein, L. H.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Atholl, Duchess of
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Grimston, R. V.
Remer, J. R.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Guy, J. C. M.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Hannah, I. C.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Harvey, T.E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Haslam, H. C.(Horncastle)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Blindell, Sir J.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Rowlands, G.


Boothby, R. J. C.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Bossom, A. C.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Boulton, W. W.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Salmon, Sir I.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Salt, E. W.


Bracken, B.
Higgs, W. F.
Selley, H. R.


Brass, Sir W.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Shakespeare, G. H.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Holmes, J. S.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Hopkinson, A.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Burghley, Lord
Horsbrugh, Florence
Simmonds, O. E.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Butler, R. A.
Hunter, T.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Cary, R. A.
Joel, D. J. B.
Spens. W. P.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Keeling, E. H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Latham, Sir P.
Storey, S.


Channon, H.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
Leckie, J. A.
Strauss, H. G.(Norwich)


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Strickland, Captain W. F


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Lewis, O.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Lindsay, K. M
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Sutcliffe, H.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W,)
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Tate, Mavis C.


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Magnay, T.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Maitland, A.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Crooke, J. S.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Cruddas, Col. B.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Touche, G. C.


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Markham, S. F.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Dawson, Sir P.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Turton, R. H.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wakefield, W. W.


Donner, P. W.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Drewe, C.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Warrender, Sir V.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Eastwood, J. F.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Wells, S. R.


Ellis, Sir G.
Nicholson, G.(Farnham)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Elmley, Viscount
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Emery, J. F.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.
Wragg, H.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Penny, Sir G.
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Everard, W. L.
Perkins, W. R. D.



Fildes, Sir H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.



Findlay, Sir E.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fleming, E. L.
Procter, Major H. A.
Commander Southby and Captain Hope.


Question put, and agreed to.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 4, line 19, to leave out from "with," to "payments," in line 21, and to insert:
a scheme made by the Commission and approved by an order of the Ministers for the time being in force.

As the Bill was designed, the subsidy arrangements were not to be laid before Parliament nor made subject to the negative resolution procedure. It was pointed out in the Committee that opportunity was not provided in the Bill for sufficient criticism to be directed against the arrangements, and although I did not accept the


suggestion of the Committee that regulations should be made as to animals eligible for subsidy, it was clearly the desire of the whole Committee that these subsidy arrangements should be laid on the Table of the House and could be prayed against. The Amendment which I now move is in order to carry out that wish. "Subsidy arrangements" is considered to be rather an incohate expression for a proposal laid on the Table of the House, and we have therefore substituted for it "subsidy scheme." I think the Amendment will carry out the desire expressed in the Committee.

Mr. Turton: I wish to express my recognition of the fact that the Minister has given a concession which was asked for in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 4, line 29, leave out "arrangements," and insert "scheme."

In line 33, leave out "arrangements," and insert "any scheme."

In line 34, leave out "are," and insert "is."

In line 35, leave out "subsidy arrangements," and insert "a subsidy scheme."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 5.—(Subsidy arrangements.)

9.48 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 5, line 8, to leave out from the beginning, to "for," in line 13, and to insert:
make and submit a subsidy scheme to the Ministers and, if the Ministers by order approve the scheme, to carry it into effect.
(2) A subsidy scheme may provide.
This is consequential upon the remarks I addressed to the House upon a previous Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 5, line 22, leave out "arrangements," and insert "scheme."

In line 22, at the end, insert:
(3) The Ministers may, before approving any subsidy scheme submitted to them by the Commission, make such modifications in the scheme as the Ministers think proper."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

9.51 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I beg to move, in page 5, line 22, at the end, to insert:
Provided that before submitting a subsidy scheme to the Ministers which provides for determining the places at which animals may be certified for the said purposes the Commission shall—

(i) cause to be published in the Gazette and in such other manner as they think best adapted for informing parties affected a notice of their intention to submit such a scheme specifying the place where the scheme may be inspected and copies thereof obtained and the price at which such copies will be supplied and stating that the Commission are prepared to receive any objections to so much of the scheme as provides for the determining of such places as aforesaid which may be made in writing within such period after the date of the publication of the notice, not being less than one month as may be specified in the notice; and
(ii) give to any person by whom any such objections have been made before the end of the period specified in that behalf in the said notice a reasonable opportunity of being heard upon such objections and take the same into consideration."
I think that the purpose of the Amendment is clear on the face of it. It relates to the second Sub-section of Clause 5, which deals with certain aspects of the subsidy arrangements and the places in respect of which certificates are required for the purpose of this Part of the Measure. When a scheme is submitted to determine the place at which animals may be certified for the purposes of the Commission, bearing in mind that certain places where transactions have taken place in the past will not be certified, it is only proper that every kind of opportunity to make protests be given to those affected, if protests are called for. If they are to have that opportunity it seems desirable that proper notice should be given in advance.
The proper official way of giving such notice is publication in the "London Gazette." It will be noticed that I go beyond that provision, because very few hon. Members read the "London Gazette." Certainly very few people in the countryside do so, except those who may be immediately affected. The general bulk of the people do not read it. Therefore, in addition to the official notice in the "London Gazette," I suggest, in the first paragraph of my Amendment, that notice shall be given
in such other manner as they think best adapted for informing parties affected a notice of their intention to submit such a scheme.


We ought not to make any important change affecting the countryside without the people there having the chance to protest and without letting them know in advance what is intended to be done. The sole object of the Amendment is that proper publicity shall be given, and that when publicity has been given the persons who are affected, whether adversely or otherwise, should have the opportunity of making representations in the right quarter. I hope that the purpose of the Amendment is now sufficiently clear.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to second the Amendment.
I would briefly add that under the existing system a place which is not now a certification centre and is or is not a market area, may be made a certification centre, and a place which is now a certification centre and is also a market may be discontinued as a certification centre. In the case of either of those eventualities, positive grave hardship may be inflicted upon interested parties, and it seems fair that they should be allowed a chance of their objections being heard. The Government have been so reasonable in regard to the claims which have been made that I hope they will give consideration to this further extension.

9.55 P.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: The most serious objection which I have to this Amendment is the delay that it would involve. It is desirable that the appointed day on which the new subsidy should become payable should be fixed as soon as possible after the Bill gets the Royal Assent, and there is bound to be a short delay between the appointment of the Commission and the appointed day. If this Amendment were passed, there would be a very long delay indeed before the new scheme could be submitted to the Ministers concerned, which would certainly hang up the date of operation of the subsidy and cause considerable loss to the producer. For that reason alone, I am disposed to recommend the House not to accede to the Amendment.
I do not in any event think it is a necessary Amendment from the point of view of the interests concerned. The existing Cattle Committee has been carrying on for about three years, and only five of

these certification centres have been closed in that time, and as far as I know the ground of closure in all five cases has been for disciplinary reasons, in consequence of irregularities. The Livestock Commission would be able to act immediately in such cases to prevent further irregularities and to secure a good and uniform standard of grading. Obviously, the desire of the Commission will be to facilitate the distribution of the subsidy as best it can, and it would not wish unduly and unnecessarily, as past experience shows, to curtail the points at which certification can be made available. I might go so far as to give the assurance that any market which would be a real market under this Bill would be continued as a certification centre as long as the supply of cattle was maintained and so long as it was conducted properly and efficiently. It is essential that the Commission should have a full discretion in its administration, and I hope my Friend will consider the point of view of delay and the point of view of the position which the Commission must occupy as a public service, and that he will not press his Amendment.

Mr. H. G. Williams: The Minister said that it was not likely that places where irregularities are taking place would be continued, but surely he will give some kind of control.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: The cattle producers are informed fairly well where the certification centres are, and as under the terms of the Bill they are to receive for first quality fat cattle a subsidy of 7s. 6d. per cwt. or, shall we say, £3 10s. or more for every head of cattle that they send to the certification centre, they will know all about the certification centres and just where they are.

9.59 P.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I was in the Scottish Standing Committee discussing a similar Bill, and the proposal was made there that notification should be given in the "Edinburgh Register," but the representative of the Government argued against it and said that the people did not read the "Edinburgh Register." He opposed vigorously the use of it because it would not serve the purpose, and he said that, on the contrary, other measures would have to be taken so that the people


in the country could get to know what would be decided and would be in a position to make representations. Now we are told that it does not matter for the people in the country.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Having regard to what I will call the moderately satisfactory explanation given by my hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 5, line 23, to leave out Subsection (3).
This and the next Amendment are consequential on the Amendment which I last moved.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 27, leave out Sub-section (4).—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 6.—(Regulations.) 10.2 p.m.

Mr. Acland: I beg to move, in page 6, line 41, at the end, to insert:
And the Minister may, after consultation with the Commission, vary or revoke any regulation made under this section if it appears to him and to the Commission that it is desirable so to do in order to encourage the production of those classes, qualities and descriptions of livestock for which there appears to be the greatest demand.
Clause 6 gives the Minister power by regulation to prescribe the descriptions of livestock, some descriptions to receive higher subsidies than other descriptions. It is quite true that under the Bill as it stands the Minister has power to alter those regulations from time to time, and he might well alter them in the sense indicated by the Amendment even if the Amendment were not accepted. Therefore, if the House were to pass the Amendment, it would be doing no more than to make clear the policy which it is desired that the Minister should pursue. I think it has been agreed by the House —at any rate, it has not been challenged —that the policy of the Government should be to try to secure that the production of high-quality beef should be made as profitable as possible, but that it is not the business of this House or of i he community to preserve in perpetuity the prosperity of the production of beasts

which are not of the highest quality. We have had issued to us a White Paper which indicates provisionally what the descriptions are going to be in the first instance. Roughly speaking, an animal of over 6½ cwt. which has a killing-out percentage of 54 per cent. will get 5s. subsidy, and if it is over 7 cwt. and has a killing-out percentage of 57 per cent., it will have a 7s. 6d. subsidy, and there are several other conditions which have to be fulfilled in order to secure the higher subsidy.
I hope that that is not the last word which we are going to hear on this subject of differential subsidies for cattle, because I feel that the House, the industry and the community are very deeply in ignorance of what are the qualities in a beast which attract to it the best price in the market; that is to say, the industry ought to find out that for itself. Does anybody really know, have we any idea, what the market prefers as between the 9½-cwt. or the 13-cwt. beast? If this Amendment were passed, it would have the happy effect of directing the attention of the Commission and of the Livestock Advisory Committees to this particular problem. Foreigners mainly beat us when the cost of production of beasts is concerned. Either they have lower wages than we have, or they are able to produce beasts by turning them out on something like a prairie, which needs no attention. In one way or another, their costs of production are liable to be lower than ours. Therefore, if our industry is to survive, it must survive on quality, and on producing those qualities for which there is the greatest demand.
I believe that this House, the industry and the country as a whole are not nearly so well informed as they ought to be. That is not to say that we know nothing about the superior qualities of British meat; it is not to say that it was right, as was suggested by a supporter of the Government, that there are parts of this country which know nothing of the superior qualities of British meat. I would like to answer what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) on the Second Reading with regard to the qualities of British meat, to the very great detriment of a substantial town in my constituency. The right hon. Gentleman said on the Second Reading that in the


town of Ilfracombe British beef was unknown, and that there was no North Devon mutton or beef sold in that town. I think that what he really meant was that there was no increase in the consumption in the summer, when the population rises considerably. I have had that looked into, and the fact is that the consumption of Devon beef in the summer is more than 5o per cent. above the average monthly slaughtering, while in the case of sheep it is well over no per cent. above the average. Therefore, in Ilfracombe we are not so ignorant of the relative merits of British and other beef as the right hon. Gentleman would have led the House to assume. But I do not believe that we know as much as we might know on this question.

Sir F. Acland: I beg to second the Amendment.

10.8 p.m.

Captain Heilgers: I desire to support the Amendment. The Mover said that this country was not nearly so well informed about the qualities of beef as it ought to be, but I suggest to him that it knows what it wants, and it wants the small beasts. I am certain that it does not want big beasts like Devons.

Mr. Acland: North Devons are small beasts.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Red Devons are small beasts.

Captain Heilgers: I can only speak of what I have seen at Smithfield, where at any rate the combination of North and South Devon is considerably larger than the Red-poll, and I can assure the hon. Member that the taste of the country as a whole lies far more in the direction of the Red-poll. I support the Amendment, however, because, after all, it does give a chance to the Minister to vary or revoke the regulations if it is desirable to do so in order to encourage the production of those classes, qualities and descriptions of livestock for which there appears to be the greatest demand. I think, however, that if he goes to almost any market he will find that the Suffolk Red-poll is the beast for which there is the greatest demand.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: I must contradict my hon. and gallant Friend. He is completely wrong. If he goes to

any market in the country, he will find that the Red Devon gets the best price.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Wedderburn: I am on the side of the big beast. The Mover of the Amendment tells us that his only purpose in putting it down was to direct the attention of the Livestock Commission to the problem of discovering what quality was most demanded by the country. It appears to me to be hardly necessary to call the attention of the Commission to what will be one of the principal duties for the carrying out of which they are established. If the hon. Member will refer to the White Paper, he will see, at the foot of page 5, the statement:
The proposals … place a premium upon home bred fat cattle of eligible qualities, and indicate that it is the Government's desire so far as practicable to encourage the home breeder to improve and develop his beef cattle herds.
As to the Amendment itself, it is, as perhaps the hon. Gentleman recognises, quite unnecessary, for it is already laid down in Section 32 of the Interpretation Act that, where an Act passed after the passing of that Act confers the power to make any rules, regulations or by-laws, the power will be considered as including a power exercisable in like manner and subject to a like consent to rescind, revoke, amend or vary the rules, regulations or by-laws. It is therefore unnecessary to put any words of that kind into this Bill. No direction in the Bill is necessary to enable the Minister to make any necessary adjustments in the Regulations.

Amendment negatived.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 8.—(Incidental provisions as to orders and regulations under Part II.)

10.13 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 7, line i8, at the end, to insert:
and the power to make and submit, or to approve, a subsidy scheme shall be construed as including a power, exercisable in the like manner, to make and submit, or to approve, as the case may be, a subsidy scheme varying or revoking such a scheme already approved; and every order approving a subsidy scheme shall set forth the scheme in a schedule to the order.

This Amendment and the following Amendment are both consequential on the change from "arrangements" to "subsidy scheme."

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 7, 1:ine 27, after "computed," insert "or approving a subsidy scheme."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE11.—(Power of Board of Trade to regulate importation of livestock and meat.)

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Dr. Burgin): I beg to move, in page 8, line 38, to leave out from "Board" to the end of the line, and to insert:
having regard to the interests of all classes of persons concerned, whether producers or consumers, and to the commercial relations between the United Kingdom and other countries, that the making of the Order is desirable.
This Amendment is moved in pursuance of an undertaking given by the Minister at an earlier stage of the Bill. In connection with legislation, points always arise as to whether it is necessary to insert in a Bill the particulars of the subject-matter which a Department of State has to make into consideration before making an Order. One of the habitual replies given by Ministers to questions is that all relevant considerations will be taken into account. So, when the Board of Trade is given, under this Clause, power to regulate the importation of meat, it is, broadly speaking, unnecessary in clear accurate drafting to indicate the sorts of considerations that are to govern the President of the Board of Trade in making up his mind whether or not to introduce an Order. However, when the Amendment was moved in committee to leave out the Sub-section, a certain amount of misunderstanding was evident, arid there were Members who took the view that some sinister motive induced its acceptance. As the Board of Trade were most anxious that no misapprehension should exist, and, in particular, that the whole House and the general public should understand that the interests of consumers were to be taken into account, no objection was raised to the words being reinserted in a form that was thought more appropriate.
Accordingly, the Minister for Agriculture gave in terms an undertaking that the words on the Paper should be introduced at this stage of the Bill. The words saying that it is desirable in the general interest to make an Order are to be deleted and words are to be inserted to show

that, after taking into account the interests of all concerned, whether producers or consumers, and commercial relations between the United Kingdom and other countries, if the President then thinks that an Order for restricting the importation of meat is desirable, an order may be made under the Clause. I think the House will agree, first, that the Minister would naturally desire to implement his undertaking, secondly, that the undertaking corresponds to a desire generally felt in all parts of the House and, thirdly, that these words are appropriate to secure that result.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. Barnes: I am very glad to see the Board of Trade reasserting some of its authority in relation to this Clause and, as far it goes, one can welcome the restoration of the word "consumer." I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary has given a quite complete record of what transpired in the Committee proceedings. The whole Clause was practically remodelled, I suggest under the pressure of interests behind the Minister, and I make no apology for suggesting that the purpose of altering it was indeed a sinister purpose. The powers in the Clause are dangerous and out of place in a Bill of this character. The compromise language which the Minister has now agreed upon is still not quite as happy as the original Clause. The words "general interest" there related to the stability of the home market and, in addition, there were specific provisions which imposed the obligation on the Board of Trade to keep in mind the interests of consumers, and there was another rather important little provision that the Board of Trade had to keep in mind, the interests of manufacturers and those persons, interests or businesses which process meat.
In the new Amendment now before the House neither the words "general interest" nor those safeguards for manufacturers and processors of meat are included in the amended terms. I welcome the re-insertion of the term "consumers" in the Clause, but the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister himsel will recognise that we are, in face, opposed to the whole principle of the Clause itself. It is rather regrettable that we should impose the powers which Clause II contains in a Bill seeking to re-organise the home industry, particu-


larly at a time when prices of almost all foodstuffs are mounting fairly rapidly. If you take prices of some of the primary foodstuffs which the people of this country consume, in the last 12 months flour has increased by 17 per cent., bread has gone up 12 per cent., tea by 9 per cent., eggs by 16 per cent., and margarine by 9 per cent., and now we have powers of a restrictive character being taken in the Clause by the Board of Trade, who should be a Department anxious to safeguard the wider commercial and consuming interests of the population of this country. In addition to the restrictive nature of the Ottawa Agreements already in operation and the levy proposals of the beef and veal Customs Duties, which will take £3,000,000 out of the price of imported beef and veal commodities in this country, powers are taken to restrict the importation of beef and veal for the purpose of still further forcing up prices. It is desirable to make it clear that, while we welcome this particular Amendment, nevertheless, we shall have to register our opposition to the Clause itself.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I am one of those who have never had any particular love for quantitative regulation, because I realise the logical sequence of it. It is true that by the Amendment we are modifying it a little. Quantitative regulation means that no new person can enter into the industry of importing meat. It is part of the totalitarian scheme which the Minister referred to earlier on. I do not believe in Fascism even when it appears in a Bill promoted by the National Government, because in existing circumstances, and having regard to the fact that we have very unwisely abandoned any effort to put duties upon Empire products on a preferential basis, this is really tariff dodging. All this unnecessary stuff is being put into the Bill because we had not the courage and foresight to adopt the right principle earlier on, and we are forced into this rather undesirable system. I am glad to see that there are some qualifications in the Amendment where it refers to the question of the commercial relationship between the United Kingdom and other countries. In the Committee I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade a question to which he did not give me an

answer, because he thought it was diplomatically inconvenient. No doubt he will consider that this speech is diplomatically inconvenient. I hope it is, because by that we may help to bring to an end a very undesirable state of affairs.
In December, 1924, we signed a commercial agreement with Germany which contains a clause not to be found in any other commercial agreement that we have signed in more recent times. It is the abandonment of prohibition. Article 10 of that agreement says that we may not apply quantitative regulations to any goods coming from Germany—subject to certain sanitary exceptions—unless we have a marketing system. In all our other commercial agreements there is the most-favoured-nation clause, which applies not only to tariffs but to quantitative regulations. As a result of the most-favoured-nation clause, Article 10 of our commercial agreement with Germany is automatically extended to the whole world, and the present position is that we cannot apply quantitative regulations to the importation into this country of any commodity from any country in the world unless that commodity is subject in this country to a system of internal regulation. Accordingly, where we have a marketing scheme in operation we can apply quantitative restriction, but where we have not a marketing scheme in operation we cannot apply quantitative regulation.
As I understand this Bill, it is not a marketing scheme within the interpretation of Article 10 of the German commercial agreement, and therefore technically this Clause cannot be used. For a long time I have urged in letters to the Press, in speeches in this House, and in articles, in conjunction with a number of other hon. Members, that we should get rid of Article 10 of the German commercial agreement, and then pass into law some general Act authorising quantitative regulation in those cases where it is necessary—I do not like quantitative regulation but I recognise its necessity in certain cases—and then use the instrumentality of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, so that when there was quantitative regulation there should be some liberty, as there is to-day in connection with import duties; but that is impossible until we get rid of Article 10.
It may be that I am going to make the operation of this Bill more difficult


when it becomes an Act. It may be that by what I am saying I am drawing the attention of the Germans to the fact that we are going to dodge their Treaty. I hope I do, because I want to force His Majesty's Government to get out of the impossible position that they are in in respect of Article f o. I do not believe that they can honourably put this Clause into operation until they, do what is necessary. There is no reason why the Germans should think we are doing anything offensive to them if we ask them to modify their commercial agreement in regard to Article 10, because we can explain to them that throughout the operation of our other agreements Article 10 of their agreement ties us to the rest of the world, and that what we are seeking is freedom.
I do not know how embarrassing this may be to the Board of Trade. I do not much mind, because I want to force their hands. Much as I dislike quantitative regulation, I recognise that there are times when it may be necessary or when the threat of it may be an advantage. I want the time to come when the Government will be free in certain circumstances to apply the system. We are pretending to be free in this Bill. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will supply to the House the information which, as far as I could make out, he could not supply in the Committee upstairs, when I made a speech somewhat similar to the one I am now making, although the speech that I made then was a little more temperate. I hope that we shall have a little more information than we have had on this subject of the position in respect of our commercial agreements.

10.29 p.m.

Major Hills: Before the House goes to a Division I think we ought to have an answer. The question is a novel one to me and I expect to many other hon. Members who were not on the committee. I thought there was to be a regulation of imports under the Bill, and though like my hon. Friend I am not fond of quantitative regulations I think under modern conditions you must possess the power to impose them; otherwise your hand may be forced and industry may suffer. I notice also that under the Amendment which we are now discussing there are modifications on the proposal originally in the Bill, and I do not think that any hon. Member, even the hon. Member for

the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) can now object to it. I want to know whether the Clause will do anything at all. Do we or do we not possess the power to restrict imports by quantitative regulation? I think we should have a clear answer on that point before we take a decision.

10.31 p.m.

Dr. Burgin: I did not intend any discourtesy to the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) or to any other hon. Member. I thought the point was too elementary. There is no restriction upon the power of His Majesty's Government to make quantitative regulations either under the most-favourednation clause, or under the particular Article of the particular agreement to which the hon. Member for South Croydon has referred. This i4 an essential Clause in the Bill. One of the defects of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1931 was that there was no power to restrict imports. If the Bill passes into law the Clause will give the Board of Trade power to make orders.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Does the Parliamentary Secretary really say that Article 10 of the agreement with Germany does not mean what it has always been interpreted to mean?

Dr. Burgin: The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) has put an interpretation on Article to that I have not heard before. It Is not a correct interpretation.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: The hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) has indicated the position of hon. Members on these benches. We do not agree with the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary that there was a defect in the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1931. We know that in the 1933 Act power was taken to apply quantitative regulations where a marketing scheme was in existence. These conditions were lifted bodily out of that Act and placed in the Bill as it came before the House on Second Reading. In Committee the safeguards for the consumers and users were removed. The hon. Member has now told us that the Amendment that has been moved meets the case and that we have no further complaint. We still have a complaint, however, that the Government are taking power, in


advance of any marketing scheme of any kind coming into existence, to apply further restrictions on imports. My hon. Friend said that since 1933 restrictions have been applied. Further restrictions are to be applied under the Argentine agreement. Imports are now down to a fairly low level compared to imports over a long period of time, and I do not think the House ought to give the Board of Trade or any other Department further powers to restrict imports until we know that real marketing schemes are in existence and that the cattle producers, with the assistance of the Livestock Commission, are doing for themselves what ought to have been done many years ago.

10.36 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: With regard to the Parliamentary Secretary's reply concerning the treaty with Germany, I would remind him that, in reply to a question which I put a few weeks ago, the President of the Board of Trade told me that the treaty with Germany would prevent the Government from putting on restrictions on eggs coming into this country unless there was a marketing scheme in operation. I have not great knowledge of these treaties, but from replies I had received I had always understood that that was the position. I am very much obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for his reply.

10.37 p.m.

Sir F. Acland: With great respect to the Ministers concerned in this matter, I attach only minor importance both to the Bill as it is now—in which there are the words:
desirable in the general interest"—
and to the Amendment which we are asked to make, in which there are the words:
Having regard to the interests of all classes of persons concerned.
My reason for taking that attitude is that in the Marketing Act which was passed in the last Parliament we thought we were definitely saying that there should not be restrictions on supplies from abroad unless a marketing scheme was under active consideration. That did not prevent the Board of Trade from convincing itself, three and a-half years ago, that a restriction of imports from the Irish Free State was desirable. No marketing

scheme was under active consideration at that time. To say that three and a-half years ago the wording of the Act was in any way carried out so as to justify the heavy restriction that was imposed on Irish stock is a pure invention, and therefore I am less inclined to treat seriously any words that may be included.

10.39 p.m.

Captain Heilgers: I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary one or two questions. In the first place, does this Amendment make any difference with regard to the declaration made by His Majesty's Government at Ottawa? The declaration then made was that the policy of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom in relation to meat production was first to secure the market for home production. In the White Paper of 1935, the Government said:
It is the firm intention of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to safeguard the position of the United Kingdom livestock industry.
In this Amendment one safeguard is dropped out. It is the provision that the President of the Board of Trade had to consult with the Minister of Agriculture. Secondly, there has been introduced the reference to the commercial relations between the United Kingdom and other countries. I would like to know whether these commercial relations and the agreements which have been made by the Board of Trade, will weaken the position taken up by the Government at Ottawa and subsequently?

Dr. Burgin: The answer to the hon. and gallant Member is that no difference whatever is made. The Amendment contains the substance of the Clause which was deleted from the Bill at an earlier stage. It is merely a happier method of phrasing the same thing and I think the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) will find that consumers, including processors, are covered.

Amendment agreed to.

10.41 p.m.

Dr. Burgin: I beg to move, in page 8, line 39, after "for," insert "livestock and."
This Amendment also arises out of an undertaking which was given by the Minister in Committee that the Board of Trade would have regard to the market for livestock. The reason for referring


only to the market for meat in the Bill was because the market for meat is the primary factor, but it is recognised that the importation of livestock may also have a considerable influence and the Board of Trade is prepared to have these words inserted.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. T. Williams: On a point of Order. May I ask whether, as Clause 11 has been amended, we shall have an opportunity of voting on the question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"?

Mr. Speaker: That is never done on Report.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 14.—(General regulation of holding of livestock markets.)

10.43 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move in page 11, line 2, to leave out "for the time being."
This Amendment is introductory to a series of Amendments on Clause 14. The Clause provides that no new markets can come into existence without the approval of the Commission. The object of that is to prevent market re-organisation being nullified by new markets coming into existence without control. This group of Amendments first makes it clear that approval of the market is to be by order, that is to say, by a certain document which conveys the approval of Commission and that the order must have Ministerial approval so that it is backed by Ministerial responsibility, and can be questioned as such. Secondly, these Amendments make it clear that the Commission are not only to consult the Livestock Advisory Committee and other interests before they give approval to a new market, but that they are also to give any interested person an opportunity of appearing before them and are to consider any representations which may be made before they submit their order for approval by the Minister.
Those two purposes indicate a growing recognition of the importance which approval of a new market has to existing markets round about it. It is clear that the approval of a new market may greatly affect existing markets, and it is for that reason that we have laid greater stress on the procedure of consultation before a market is approved. The third thing which these Amendments do is to remove

the special conditions as to the control of new markets. We feel that the correct procedure with regard to a new market is that the Commission should examine what is proposed, having regard to its layout and equipment, and if they are satisfied that the market is to be a good modern one, that they should approve it, and that it should then be in exactly the same position as a market which continues in existence because it has been in existence before. We think that is an easier way, than to leave both old and new markets to further regulation, if necessary, by means of livestock market orders and by-laws

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 11, line 3, after "by," insert "an order of."

In line 3, after "Commission," insert:
for the time being in force, being an order made with the approval of the appropriate Minister.

In page11 leave out lines 4 to 11.—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

10.46 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I beg to move, in page 1, line 17, after "occupier," to insert:
or any sale of livestock being a sale incidental to a sale of the farm or to the termination of a tenancy thereof.
Clause 14 provides that unless premises are used for a market during the year ending 3oth November, 1936, they will be subject to the approval of the Commission but a sale on a farm by or on behalf of the occupier was exempted from the restriction of the Clause. In the Committee stage it was felt that it was not certain under these words that sales on dispersal were covered and we undertook that words would be inserted in the Bill to exempt sales of that kind.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: Do we understand that at a sale incidental to the sale of a farm or to the termination of a tenancy, farmers can bring cattle to that farm to be sold?

Mr. Ramsbotham: Yes.

Mr. Williams: I gather that this is not a common practice. That may be the case, but I submit that if additions are made to the exemptions that are to be given, so that these sales can be con-


ducted on ordinary farms, it will endanger the possibility of any substantial marketing scheme. The Bill already allows the individual to sell his cattle on the farm, and it is obvious that merchants and middlemen will do their best to go to farms and affect the market schemes. If these sales can be organised, the market schemes are bound to be endangered. I can understand a sale at the termination of a tenancy or where a farm is being sold, but to allow farmers in the area to bring in cattle for disposal will harm the central marketing scheme.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: It is true, as the hon. Gentleman says, that if this practice were exploited it would do considerable harm, but it is surely not expected that it will do so. Its intention is an entirely different one. In my part of the country, especially in the Highlands, these sales occur when a farm changes hands, and as the farmers in the locality may be 20 or 30 miles away from the market, it is natural that one or two farmers round about should send in their cattle to be sold there. I think I was the one who moved this Amendment in Committee. I did so because of my own personal knowledge and the great hardship that would he imposed on farmers if this were not permitted. It happens now, and we ask that it should be continued. I imagine that if it were misused the Commission would have to take steps to prevent that.

10.51 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I think that if the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) goes round the agricultural parts of his constituency he will find that this Amendment is meeting the needs of his agricultural constituents, and he will be wise not to press his point too far or he will lose some of those agricultural votes on which he relies. This is one of the few occasions when an undertaking given by the Minister in Committee has not been fulfilled in full. There is the question of the sale of pedigree stock. I regret that the Amendment is not wider. The periodical sales of pedigree stock are of prime importance to agriculture, and I am sure that the Minister does not for a moment want to forbid those sales. This is a case where the Minister might consider the matter, and, if possible, insert further words in another place.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Haslam: I should like to add my plea to those of other hon. Members. This is an old custom and a very convenient one for farmers where there is a sale at a certain farm, and if they have some stock to dispose of, to be able to send it there, too. There is no real likelihood of this custom being abused. No one can tell when a farm is going to change hands, and it is almost inconceivable that any auctioneers should try to manufacture a sale of this kind. Farmers would very much resent it if this old custom were abolished. It does not have any great effect on the number of cattle going to market.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page line 38, leave out "previous approval of," and insert "order approving."

In line 38, at the end, insert:
without prejudice, however, to the making of a new order approving the premises.

In line 38, at the end, insert:
(3) Where an application is made to the Commission for their approval of any premises under this Section, the Commission, before coming to a decision on the application, shall consult the Livestock Advisory Committee and such local authorities and other bodies as appear to the Commission to be representative of interests concerned, and shall give to any person appearing to the Commission to be interested in the matter of the application a reasonable opportunity of making representations to the Commission, and take any such representations into consideration.

In line 39, after "under," insert:
paragraph (b) of the proviso to Subsection (1) of."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 15.—(Livestock markets orders.)

10.55 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 12, line 17, leave out from "Commission," to "may," in line 20.
This Amendment and the four succeeding Amendments are in consequence of an assurance I gave in Committee. Clause 15 suggested erroneously that the Commission would proceed to put down in black and white their livestock orders before consultation had occurred. It was suggested, with some justice, that if they had committed themselves to a printed paper it would be difficult to make the consultations effective. These Amendments give effect to the assurance that I would reconsider the matter, and I think it is


now beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Commission will not get this Order into draft without the consultations which are necessary for a proper draft to be made.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 12, line 20, after "may," insert:
subject to the provisions of the next following Sub-section and to the provisions of Part I of the Third Schedule to this Act.

In line 24, leave out "Third Schedule to this Act," and insert "said Schedule."

In line 25, leave out from "Minister," to the end of line 26, and insert:
if satisfied that the making of the order is desirable for the promotion of efficiency or economy in the marketing of livestock, may make the order either in terms of the draft or with modifications thereof."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

10.57 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 12, line 26, at the end, to insert:
(2) When the Commission first decide that a livestock markets order is desirable in relation to any area, they shall forthwith serve a written notice of their decision (specifying the said area) on such bodies as appear to the Commission to be representative of local authorities and other interests likely to be affected by the order, and shall give those bodies a reasonable opportunity of making to the Commission representations with respect to the terms of the draft order; and the Commission shall, in settling the terms in which the draft order is to be submitted to the appropriate Minister take into consideration any such representations as aforesaid which may have been made to them by the said bodies, and also consult the Livestock Advisory Committee.
This Amendment is moved to make it clear that the consultation between the Commission and those affected shall precede drafting by the Commission.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. Haslam: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 3 to leave out from "on," to the first "and," in line 4, and to insert:
local authorities within the said area and adjacent to the said area which the Commission may consider to be affected.
In the first place, I should like to give my thanks to the Minister for the alterations made in Clause 15, making it quite clear that there will be publicity and full discussion. That is what some of us asked for on the Committee stage, because, after all, if the Livestock Commission propose to reorganise the

markets in a particular area they can do so more successfully if the local authorities and those interested in the markets are taken into full consultation. The Amendment undoubtedly carries out that pledge and the local authorities and the people in the market towns, especially those in far distant districts, are very much gratified at the action of the Minister. The Amendment which I and certain of my friends are moving, is really a very small one. The Minister's Amendment states that the Commission will give notice of their intention to reorganise markets and
will serve a written notice of their decision (specifying the said area) on such bodies as appear to the Commission to be representative of local authorities.
The words to which I direct attention are such bodies as "appear to the Commission to be representative of local authorities." My Amendment seeks to ask the Commission to give direct notice to the local authority. That seems the simplest and most straightforward way of proceeding, especially in the case of the smaller local authorities which may be very interested in particular markets. I understand that the words "such bodies as appear to the Commission to represent them" may refer to the Urban District Councils' Association or to the associations of local authorities. Surely it is much simpler to give direct notice, and it would be a much better opening for those consultations which the Minister desires to have.

11.1 p.m.

Sir J. Lamb: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
In doing so I would thank the Minister for his action in putting down the proposed Amendment. Our Amendment is a simple one. I take it that the Minister is wishful that representations should be received from those who have anything germane to say on the question to the Commission. He has indicated that he thinks it would be permissible for local authorities to be represented by an association, but in the first instance the association would most probably give a majority view to the Commission, whereas some local authorities might have a minority view, although a very important one, which they felt they should place before the Commission. If they were represented only by an association, the danger, and probably more than the


danger, would be that the specific case would not be heard before the Commission. There would thus be a grievance, and that is undesirable for the future good working of the scheme.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I hope that my hon. Friends will believe me when I say that I adopted this form of words in order to give effect to the assurance which I gave in Committee, and that I believe it is the best way for the Commission to act in complete co-operation with local authorities. I would point out to my hon. Friends that it is possible for a livestock markets order to cover a very considerable extent of territory. As the term "local authority" implies every local body except the parish council, it might be that the area of a livestock markets order was so wide that a very large number of local authorities would be within its boundaries. According to the Amendment, they would all have to be consulted seriatim by the Commission. That is a very stringent burden to place upon the Commission, in the way of spreading their consultations over more numerous bodies. The Commission are obliged by law to send out many documents, and because of the heavy burden which it will lay upon them, the less heavy should be the burden laid on them of consulting the interests concerned.
The way this thing works is that committees are formed by local authorities. People with a particular interest connected with a proposed order prefer to come together in a negotiating nucleus rather than that each and all of them should separately undertake negotiations with the Commission. The Commission are bound, under the terms of my Amendment, to consult all such bodies and interests as appear to them to be likely to be affected, and I would ask my hon. Friends to rest assured that, in the first place, the Commission are bound under my Amendment to consult the interests likely to be affected, and therefore the case of the small urban or rural district council holding a market could not possibly be overlooked. In the second place, I would ask them to remember that in fact every local authority in the area affected does have a direct right of representation to the Commission, and there is nothing in the Bill which prevents it making its views known to the Com-

mission if it deems itself likely to be affected. In the last resort, it can, if it has been overridden, if there is any chance of that—I believe there is not—appeal to the Minister against the order and carry all its dilatory proceedings to the very fullest extent. I believe that this is the best method for securing the most effective consultation. It is far better than the sort of arm's length procedure of giving every single local authority which might not be affected at all —and the great number of them will not be affected at all—the right to have written notice served upon it and to be consulted in every case. I am convinced, and my hon. Friends can take it from me, that under this procedure there is no chance at all of any local authority, however small, having its views neglected when a livestock markets order is being drafted.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: For once I do not think the Minister has quite met the point of the Amendment. My right hon. Friend visualises that bodies representative of local authorities would be ad hoc bodies formed for the purpose of dealing with the situation, but that manifestly cannot be the case, because until the Commission have decided to draft an order, and until they issue it, nobody knows they are going to do it. Therefore there cannot be any bodies representative of the local authorities except the distinguished people who live in a large building across the road namely, the Association of Municipal Corporations, the County Councils Association, the Urban District Councils Association, and I think also there is a Rural District Councils Association. So far as I am aware, they are the only bodies representative of local authorities, and therefore this is in fact a statement that the written notice is to be sent to those four bodies all or practically all of whom have their rooms in a large building just across the road from here.
But that is not what the Minister indicated. He indicated that there would be local bodies representative of local authorities in the area affected, but there are not any. He said that no small authority is likely to be left out, because the words "other interests likely to be affected" govern them. I am not an eminent K.C. like the Minister, but surely the correct reading is this, that if you have to send a document to


such bodies as appear to the Commission to be representative of local authorities and other intelersts likely to be affected,
the words "other interests" exclude the local authorities, and therefore no small local authorities will get any communication at all. In fact, no local authority in the area affected will get any communication until they get it from London, and that is the kind of thing which irritates the countryside, that they should receive all their communications, not direct, but through the office in the large building across the road. I ask the Minister to look again into this problem, because I am satisfied that the Amendment of my hon. Friend puts the matter in a very much more satisfactory way and in a way which will, I am certain, be gratifying to rural opinion.

11.9 p.m.

Brigadier-General Brown: Has the Minister in mind the county agricultural committees? They would be able, in the areas with which they are connected, to give this information. I suggest that the Rural District Councils Association, for instance, of which I have the honour to be vice-chairman, would not be a suitable body to spread that information, but that it would be much better that this duty should be placed in the hands of the County Agricultural Committee. I am not quite sure whether, under the Bill, the county council would be allowed to have anything to do with it.

11.11 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Perhaps, with the leave of the House, I may say a further word. I will look at this point again. I am anxious to make sure that everyone feels happy about it, because it is necessary, not only that justice should be done, but that it should manifestly appear to be done. My desire, however, and I hope my hon. Friends will bear this in mind, is to avoid loading the Commission and the fund with needless expense. I wish to make sure, on the one hand, that adequate notice is given to all those who are likely to be affected, and at the same time to avoid waste of money on needless documentation which does not add to the enlightenment of anyone. With this assurance, I hope that my hon. Friends will see their way not to press the Amendment.

Mr. Haslam: In view of the Minister's expressed desire that full notice shall be given to the local authorities, and of his

assurance that he will look into the matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

11.13 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: I beg to move, in page 13, line 2, at the end, to insert:
Provided also that in the case of a livestock markets order revoking a livestock markets order which was confirmed by Parliament the revoking order shall be provisional only and shall not have effect until confirmed by Parliament, whether a memorial praying that such order shall not become law without confirmation by Parliament shall be presented under paragraph r of Part 11 of the Third Schedule to this Act or not.
Under Clause 15, the Minister can approve of certain livestock markets orders, and they have to come before Parliament for confirmation. He can also revoke an order which has been passed by this House, provided that the Order is not executive, without referring to the House again. It seems to me to be derogatory to the dignity of this House that the Minister, having received the consent of the House to an Order, will be able, the next day or a few days after, completely to alter the Order without the consent of the House. I hope he will see that it is not right that that should be possible.

Brigadier-General Brown: I beg to second the Amendment.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I have considered this Amendment, and I sympathise in some degree with the motive which has prompted it. But I would point out that the Clause already provides, in Subsection (4), that an Order varying or revoking a livestock market order shall be subject to the like conditions as the original Order. There is, therefore, no question of a revoking Order being in any better position than the original Order. That means that, if an amending or revoking Order were opposed, the Provisional Order procedure would apply to it; but of course, if it is not opposed, the Provisional Order procedure, which is dilatory in character, is, quite properly, not imposed. If I were to accept the


Amendment, I should be in the peculiar position, that whereas an unopposed markets Order might pass the House without Provisional Order procedure, an unopposed Order to revoke or vary it, which everyone agreed to, would also have to go through Provisional Order procedure. I am certain that is not my hon. and gallant Friend's intention, but by Sub-section (4) the two things are exactly on the same footing. When he realises that, I am sure he will agree that it will he better not to incur the expense and delay of Provisional Order procedure.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.16 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson): I beg to move, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."
Good progress has been made, and the Government hope that the House will feel that to-morrow should see the completion of the Report stage and Third Reading of the Bill.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal) to be further considered To-morrow.

ESTIMATES.

Ordered,
That Mr. Thomas be discharged from the Select Committee on Estimates and that Captain Sir William Brass be added to the Committee."—[Sir G. Penny.]

SUMMARY PROCEDURE (DOMESTIC PROCEEDINGS) BILL (CHANGED FROM "SUMMARY PROCEDURE (MATRIMONIAL AND OTHER MATTERS) BILL").

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; read the Third time, and passed.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).

11.14 p.m.

Sir Edmund Findlay: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying Him to withhold approval from the Banffshire Educational Trust Scheme, 1935, made under the Educa-

tional Endowments (Scotland) Act, 5928, in so far as it relates to the Banff Educational Trust and Murray's Trust, Macduff, a copy of which scheme was presented to, this House on the 22nd day of March, 1937.
There have been since this scheme was first mooted very grave objections from all parts of Banffshire. It has been opposed by one party or other at every conceivable opportunity. It was hoped that, when Fordyce was eventually allowed to contract out, the scheme would not be continued. It is held that there are grave objections to it, that it is contrary to the wishes of the inhabitants of Banff and Macduff, that there is no particular need for it in view of the fact that the funds are efficiently managed at present, and principally that there is no provision for continuing the secondary school bursaries.
I would like to take that last point 'first. The Minister may say that it is now the duty of the education authority to provide ample and adequate secondary school education, and that, therefore, these bursaries should be shifted to some other purpose. I maintain that there is a need for them and that there is a precedent for their continuance. There is the case of the Duff Bursaries, Paisley, and the County of Kincardine and Aberdeenshire, and Fordyce. I will take the Fordyce case later, but I would say that it is not possible to draw an Act of Parliament so that there are no border-line cases, and the Murray Trust in Macduff is specially designed to meet these border-line cases. In the original words of the bequest it states that this money is to be given to parents not in receipt of parochial relief, and, to bring these words up-to-date, I think it will show that the wishes of the donor were that those people who might be on the border-line should profit by such an endowment as he left. I should be quite prepared to accept the reply of the Minister that it was no longer necessary, if he could assure me that the education is quite perfect and that no border-line cases exist.
The Commissioners also state that the expenses in connection with the endowments in most places have been too high. They cannot use that argument in this connection, for Macduff and Banff were complimented on the care with which the fund has been managed. I think there is a more serious reason why this scheme should not be approved, because it creates for the first time a serious difference


between the methods by which those two schools of Banff and Fordyce will be governed. Since the Commissioners, in 1882, laid down these schemes, these schools have run on parallel lines. Now their lines have diverged, and I believe that one or other will suffer. As the Fordyce scheme was passed by Order in Council only in 1936, it is not possible to put it into question. That was agreed to by the Minister and the governing body of Fordyce, but as this scheme is different it will mean that the future of these schools will diverge. I humbly ask the Minister when he comes to weigh up this scheme not to weigh it up on its merits alone but to consider whether the disadvantages of having two trusts with dissimilar governing bodies will not outweigh the advantages which obtain under this scheme.

11.26 p.m.

Mr. G. A. Morrison: I beg to second the Motion.
I want to say a few words on one aspect of the question, namely, the threat to the prestige and status of a great secondary school. The secondary school concerned, Banff Academy, has a long and splendid history. I have special qualifications for speaking on this part of the problem, having been head of two great secondary schools. My experience is that a great secondary school is very sensitive to hints of change. The effects of legislative changes are not always easily foreseen, and great harm may be wrought unintentionally. Some of the most anxious hours of my life were spent over a similar question that arose in one of the schools of which I was the head. It would be a great pity if anything were to impair the prestige and usefulness of Banff Academy. There is not a shadow of doubt that local opinion is solidly in support of the retention of competitive bursaries at the academy. Parents prefer to have the main work of education securely founded, while ready to welcome provision in other ways for other objects. I am assured that, as Section 31 (1) of the approved scheme is worded, it is impossible to frame a scheme which can preserve local preferences, and that the education authority have little power to do anything but throw the pooled resources open to the whole county. It is not well that a community with a real enthusiasm for education should be left with a rankling sense of grievance, even of

injustice, and I would ask the Under-Secretary to make one more effort to secure a settlement by consent. I am a native of the county, very proud of its traditions, and greatly interested in what may happen to them. Any help that I can give the hon. Gentleman towards the desired end will be very gladly given.

Mr. Westwood: Does the hon. Member suggest that competitive bursaries should be provided with money that was left entirely for the poor?

Mr. Morrison: In general, I should say that in that part of Scotland we prefer that system. If a boy can show that he is capable of winning a bursary, he feels that he has earned it like a salary. That seems to me a healthier system than applying to the education authority for what is called by a name we do not like —a maintenance allowance.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Wedderburn: The great objection to the scheme is that no provision is made for the continuance of the school bursaries available under the Banff Educational Trust and Murray's Educational Trust. I think that the general grounds for the discontinuance of school bursaries under this new scheme are well known to the House, because we have often had on occasion to repeat them in Motions of this kind during the last two or three years. The Education Act, 1918, laid down for the educational authority the duty of making adequate provision for secondary education without any payment of fees. That provision was mentioned by the hon. Member for Banff (Sir E. Findlay), but one ought to add that this was supplemented by a power under Section 4 of the Act to award bursaries in order to ensure that poverty should not prevent promising children from taking advantage of the education which was provided, and another Section of the Act, Section 6, was designed to secure that this power is adequately exercised by the local education authority. The Commissioners took the view that the school bursaries provided by endowments were, for this reason, not giving the beneficiaries something which they would not otherwise enjoy; they were merely providing something which would be provided and paid for by the local education authority, and that view was also taken by the House of Commons when the Educational Endowments Act, 1935, was before the House.


An Amendment was moved to direct the Commissioners to pay special regard to the continuance of this provision by endowments, but it was defeated. By a decision of Parliament, therefore, the Commissioners were bound by this general principle, not to continue these secondary school bursaries which are fully provided for everybody by the education authority.
The hon. Member has mentioned what he calls border-line cases, referring, no doubt, to competitive schemes which were not intended solely for poor children. I think provision is always made in these schemes, and the Commissioners have always been careful to distinguish between an endowment bursary of the type awarded by the county council and an endowment bursary which by the direction of the donor was to be awarded on merit, but was not to be restricted for the benefit of the poor. If the hon. Member will look at the Banff Educational Scheme, on page 30, he will see that a number of specific bequests for that purpose have been continued, the Chivas Adam bursary of £9 the James Brown bursary of £12 and two other small bursaries are also included in the scheme on account of the special conditions attached to them by the donors. It is true that in a few cases the Commissioners have provided school bursaries in exceptional circumstances. I do not think that I need enter into these exceptional circumstances except in the one case mentioned by my hon. Friend, the Fordyce School Trust. My hon. Friend wanted to know why these bursaries had been continued there, while they had not be continued at Banff Academy. The Fordyce Trust endowment was formerly administered under a scheme framed under the Endowments Act, 1882.
These revenues were to be applied in three ways. One payment of £100 a year was to be made to the education authority for the promotion of higher instruction in that school, and that was allocated by the education authority among the teaching staff. One half of the residue was for the establishment of bursaries for competition among a restricted class and tenable at the public school at Fordyce, and the remaining half of the residue was for the establishment of bursaries for competition, again among

a restricted class, and tenable at the University of Aberdeen. As for the third item, the University bursaries, the conditions which attached to their award and tenure raised some difficult legal questions as a result of which the Commissioners decided that it was better to treat that part of the endowment as applicable to the University and not to make any change in the governing body. What we are concerned with, for the sake of my hon. Friend's parallel, is the school bursaries.
It was represented to the Commissioners that the object of these bursary provisions under the 1882 scheme was not to provide a general opportunity for secondary education, but rather to attract pupils to the Fordyce Academy on account of its peculiar qualities. It is in a very remote situation; and it has a very long-standing tradition of its own in classical education. Although the majority of its pupils was drawn from the region nearby, there was also a large number of boarders from more remote parts of the community.

Sir E. Findlay: Were not those pupils from the more remote parts of the country the subject of a specific request by the trustees?

Mr. Wedderburn: Yes. That is another difficulty. The area of the Fordyce scheme extended outside the boundaries of the Banff Education Authority and outside the area covered by the Banff Educational Scheme. It was a specific purpose of the school, and of the bursaries, that it should try to attract scholars from other areas besides Banff. There was a number of boarders from more remote parts of the country. It was felt that this school had a character which it was desirable to preserve, and in order to fulfil that intention it was necessary that these bursaries should be continued, because if they had been discontinued, the education authority might not have been under the obligation to give those grants to children outside Banff. The object of these particular bursaries was to attract people from various parts of the country to this particular school. That was a function with which the Banff Education Authority was not concerned, and it could not rightly be said to step into the shoes of the Fordyce Educational Trust on that point. I think these facts clearly differentiate the case of the County of


Banff Bursaries Trusts, in which the Fordyce school was included, from those of the Banff Educational Trust and Murray's Educational Trust, on behalf of which my hon. Friend moved this Prayer, because they have no corresponding specialities which might be compared with those which apply to the Fordyce Academy.

11.39 p.m.

Mr. Westwood: I trust that the hon. Members who moved and seconded this Prayer will be prepared to withdraw it after the explanation given by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. In the limited time at his disposal, lie explained what are the guiding principles as far as the Commissioners are concerned. I was rather surprised by the statement made by the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Morrison). He seemed to suggest that money which had been left for the benefit of the poor should be used for bursaries. In no instance did the Commissioners in framing their schemes eliminate competitive bursaries where money was left for that purpose, but in every case they followed the directions of the Act to give consideration to the spirit and intention of the donors, Further, it was a direct instruction from this House that money left for the poor should not be diverted from the poor, and it would have been wrong to have used any of this money for the purpose of providing competitive bursaries.
It is clear from the seventh report of the Commissioners and also the eighth report, which is now available to members of this House, what was the guiding principle which directed us in our work in regard to these endowments. The Under-Secretary has already very ably explained that guiding principle. I am sorry that the original proposals of the Commissioners are not before the House.

They brought forth all kinds of hostility. It was due to that fact that the Commissioners had to divide up the endowments and have several schemes instead of one scheme for the county. It was proved that Banff Academy had a good record and no one desires to besmirch that record, but, as I say, it would be wrong if money, left directly for the poor were used to provide competitive bursaries. It would also be wrong to allow money that had been gifted by some generous donor in the past to be used merely to relieve the local authority of Banffshire in carrying out its statutory duty of providing free secondary education according to the law in Scotland.
These facts are dealt with by the Commissioners in their eighth report and I intervene merely because I happen to be one of the unfortunate individuals who had to stand much of that abuse which has been referred to, while we were carrying through this work for education in Scotland. My name is attached to this scheme and I hope the scheme will go through. It is not perfect, but the Commissioners did everything possible to meet all legitimate objections. They spent a lot of time upon it, and prepared for this House what they considered to be the best scheme possible in the circumstances.

Question put, and negatived.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Sixteen Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.